Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — Councillors (Financial Interests)

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in theOfficial Reportthe guidelines used for granting dispensation to members of local authorities to speak and vote on issues in which they may have an indirect financial interest.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The guidelines used for deciding applications for dispensations have been published in appendix II of DOE circular 105 of 1973, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

Mr. Davis: In view of the Secretary of State's U-turn over councillors who are parents with children at local schools, will the Minister give us an assurance that before any further similar decisions are imposed on councillors he will first make a statement to the House?

Mr. King: There is no question of any U-turn on this matter. This is the standard procedure that has been followed by successive Governments. My right hon. Friend took no decision. It is for councillors themselves to determine whether they have a pecuniary interest and, if they have, to make application for a dispensation. However, in view of the wide interest in the matter it was thought right to issue a general dispensation.

Mr. Oakes: Is the Minister aware that that is not generally known and that there is great confusion and anger among councillors? Will he make it absolutely clear that any councillor with children at school, or who may have children at school, will have the right to vote on

these issues? Will he say that from the Dispatch Box and not refer us to something in the Library?

Mr. King: The question referred to the publication of the general rules. They have been published and copies are available in the Library. I am happy to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said. In addition, every local authority has been or is being advised of this matter and I hope that my statement today will help clarify any further misunderstanding there might be.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not the Minister agree that it is high time we had a full review of the provisions relating to the disqualification of councillors who have an interest as council tenants or as parents? Does he not agree also that to disqualify councillors on that sort of ground from exercising the functions for which they were elected is to pervert the intentions of the provisions relating to pecuniary interest?

Mr. King: This matter was reviewed both by the Redcliffe-Maud committee and by the Royal Commission which inquired into the standards of conduct in public life as recently as 1977. Both bodies considered that there was no need for any change in the basic provisions that exist under the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — Urban Development Corporations

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment who are to be appointed as the chairmen of the two new urban development corporations and what will be the cost of their first year of operation.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I hope to announce my intentions about chairmen soon. The costs of the first year of operation of the two UDCs will depend upon the range of powers afforded to them, and their exact areas and patterns of land acquisition. Decisions have yet to be taken on these.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that any local authority that behaved in this way and went ahead with a plan without even pricing it would be branded by him as financially irresponsible? Will the Secretary of State also say whether the chairmen of these two


urban development corporations are likely to be taken from a business or a political background?

Mr. Heseltine: I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until I make an announcement about the chairmen of the UDCs. The powers to establish UDCs will be examined in great detail when the legislation is considered on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee. I think that it is right that these particular issues should be raised in that context.

Mr. Chapman: Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the principle of whether many, or indeed any, members of these UDCs should be members or nominees of the boroughs or local authorities in question?

Mr. Heseltine: I have considered that matter and I believe that it would be right for certain members to be drawn from local authorities but that it would be wrong for such people to be nominees.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because the chairman of the proposed London urban development corporation will displace many of the functions of the local authority over at least half of my constituency, he has been called a Tory gauleiter? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when the Government are thinking about reducing central government, he is increasing it to that extent in any area?

Mr. Heseltine: Because I think that we shall be able to do a better job for the people whom the hon. Gentleman represents than hitherto.

Oral Answers to Questions — Anti-waste Programme

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the future of the national anti-waste programme.

Mr. Heseltine: The Government are considering the future of the national anti-waste programme. In the meantime, the staff of the national anti-waste programme unit are carrying on with normal activities.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the success of the glass and textile recycling schemes, the encouraging signs in industries such as the aluminium

industry and the response from British housewives? Is it not about time that we got behind this programme, instead of letting it drift, as happened under the previous Government, to show that the Conservative Government are concerned about the prevention of waste?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much share my hon. Friend's view, and I am now initiating a series of discussions, both inside my Department and, I hope, outside with those objectives very much in mind.

Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the efforts of local authorities with regard to the collection of waste paper, bearing in mind the volume of imports of waste paper from the Continent?

Mr. Heseltine: The difficulty is that in many areas there is no economic payoff with regard to the recycling of waste paper. That makes it very difficult to encourage local authorities to take it on as an additional burden upon their ratepayers. I do not want to appear to be dismissive or negative. Like all of my predecessors, I am concerned to help in any way, either by research projects, the dissemination of information or by encouragement, within the confines of what we can afford, to pursue the objective of using waste most effectively and of protecting the environment to the greatest possible extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — British Paraplegic Sports Society

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following the provisions of the Gleneagles agreement, he will request the British Paraplegic Sports Society to abandon its sporting links with South Africa.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): The British Paraplegic Sports Society, as a constituent member of the British Sports Association for the Disabled, can be in no doubt of the Government's position on sporting contacts with South Africa. The Sports Council sent governing bodies of sport a copy of the Commonwealth statement on sport soon after this was made in 1977.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the ban operated by the British Paraplegic Sports Society on my constituent, Mrs. Maggie Jones, barring her from


international sport as a consequence of her opposition to apartheid, is despicable and quite incompatible with the spirit of the Gleneagles agreement? While I accept that the hon. Gentleman has no more responsibility for that society than he has for the Rugby Union, can I ask him to make it clear that he expects the society to comply with the spirit of that agreement?

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in pressing the claims of his constituent. However, I have no powers to intervene. The society is a charitable organisation which is independent of Government, and it is not right for me to interfere in its internal affairs.

Mr. Budgen: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the proper position for a Government who believe in the freedom of the individual is either to introduce legislation to prevent certain actions or to offer no advice at all?

Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend must realise that, with regard to South Africa, we are bound by the Gleneagles agreement. The Government have made their position quite clear, and until that agreement is renegotiated, that remains the position.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister state clearly how many of his colleagues have supported his principled stand on the general issue? Might he not perhaps welcome the support of some of his Front Bench colleagues in his rather lonely stand on this matter?

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend and the Government are bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility, and entirely support my position.

Oral Answers to Questions — General Development Order

Mr. Squire: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on whether he intends to introduce a town and country planning general development amendment order.

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for introducing a new general development order.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): We shall be publishing a consultation paper

shortly containing details of our proposals for amending the general development order.

Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give an assurance that the GDO as proposed by the Government will reduce the number of private dwellings in need of minimal adaptations that are required to go through the cumbersome and time-consuming planning process?

Mr. Fox: I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We shall obviously be mindful of those who are anxious that we exclude certain areas. For example, just as when the previous Government introduced their suggestions, we shall not allow houses to be split into two without planning permission, because that could have considerable consequences in our inner cities.

Mr. Speller: When considering the protection to be granted under the new GDO, will my hon. Friend take into account the problems of areas such as the national parks—those of Exmoor are especially current—and the conservation areas, so that there is both conservation and development?

Mr. Fox: Our consultation paper is taking rather longer than we had hoped, exactly for the reason stated by my hon. Friend. We hope to exempt the areas to which he has just referred.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if the GDO is the same as the one introduced by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) in the previous Parliament, it will be widely welcomed, provided that it excludes areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas?

Mr. Fox: I am sure that there would be a consensus of opinion with regard to what my hon. Friend has said. However, I add the proviso that, rather than seek to emulate the previous Government, we want to bring forward something that is far better.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal High School, Edinburgh

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff in his Department are engaged on work in connection with the conversion work at the former Royal high school in


Edinburgh; and what is the cost to the taxpayer of the security services provided within the grounds of the buildings.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): At present three officials have significant tasks arising from the conversion scheme at the former Royal high school. The estimated cost of the security arrangements in 1980–81 is £59,000.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figure he has just given conflicts with an answer that I was given to a written question on 21 January, wherein it was stated that the cost was £71,500? As that figure is a continuing one, is it not time that we found a suitable tenant for this building, at a profit to the nation, or sold it on behalf of the public purse, thus reducing the need for cutting public expenditure?

Mr. Finsberg: The figure that I gave my hon. Friend today was the estimated cost for 1980–81. Since May of last year we have already spent £45,000 on maintenance and security. As my hon. Friend will know, we have offered the use of the building to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister have the honesty to admit that that public money could have been put to better use had the Government gone along with the expressed wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland who voted in the referendum for the setting up of a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that £3·75 million has already been spent on this project, and there is clear evidence to show that it is not wanted by the majority of people.

Oral Answers to Questions — Homes Insulation Act 1978

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give priority to introducing a special scheme for the elderly and disabled under the term of the Homes Insulation Act 1978.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On 1 November last, we introduced changes to the homes insulation scheme and to its administration to help pensioners and others with low incomes. We shall be watching progress.

Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that the need to watch progress has become somewhat more acute as a consequence of the Government's failure to arrest the rising price of domestic fuels? Is not the need for such a scheme an absolute necessity?

Mr. Finsberg: I should point out that the increases will not affect bills for this winter.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend be involved in consultations with his colleagues in preparing the new scheme to help the elderly with their heating bills? In that context, is it not absolutely essential, in terms of economics and savings, to have a major scheme to help the elderly insulate their homes?

Mr. Finsberg: As my hon. Friend will know, we have made quite a few changes in the scheme which ought to help the elderly. In particular, we have given freedom to local authorities to decide their own priorities. We have asked them to pay particular attention to pensioner applicants, and we have also said that they need not require the applicant to produce receipted accounts. That ought to help pensioners and others on low incomes.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that under the existing scheme these people must still find about 50 per cent. of the cost? Will he persuade his colleagues in the DHSS to instruct supplementary benefit offices to be prepared, in exceptional cases, to meet the householders' proportion of the cost, or at least to increase the fuel allowances, so that there is no cost to them?

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that my colleagues at the DHSS are well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. I ought, perhaps, to make it clear that the average grant paid between September 1978 and June 1979 was £38 and that the Contractor's cost of insulating the loft of an average three-bed roomed house is about £70. Up to now, it has not proved necessary to raise the maximum grant of £50.

Mr. Rost: Is there not a strong case for making the scheme more flexible—along the lines of the argument that we put forward at the time that we opposed the proposals outlined and enforced by


the previous Government—so that those who have spent their own money on some form of insulation are not penalised?

Mr. Finsberg: There are two points that I would make to my hon. Friend. First, we are trying to be as flexible as we can, but we cannot pay grant once work has commenced. Secondly, it is not possible to follow the line that he is suggesting because the major priority must be to ensure that uninsulated homes are insulated before we consider increasing the amount of insulation that is already installed.

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing Associations

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of housing association tenants will be given the right to buy when the proposals contained in the Housing Bill are implemented.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): About one-third of housing association tenants will have the right to buy, provided that the criteria set out in the Bill are met. In addition, we intend to bring forward amendments to the Housing Bill that will enable charitable, co-operative and co-ownership associations to sell to their members if they wish.

Mr. Thorne: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, particularly on behalf of co-owners. However, I should like to ask whether there will be a pre-emption requirement to sell back to the Housing Corporation within a five-year period or, because they have paid the full mortgage payments throughout their tenure, will co-owners be allowed to get away without having to sell back?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend knows, co-ownership associations are self-governing bodies. The basis of their financing is different from that of the housing associations which have been in receipt of housing association grant. It will be for the members of those associations to make their own arrangements as to whether and how sales are made.

Oral Answers to Questions — Building Regulations and Control

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress of his consultations

with local authorities over the relaxation of building regulations.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received following his invitation on 10 December 1979, to interested parties to put forward suggestions for changes in the building regulations and control system; and what time he proposes to allow for consideration of suggestions received, further consultation and implementation of any changes.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Consultation on possible changes to the building control system has progressed well. Over 120 responses have now been received. After the end of January, my right hon. Friend will consider all the views submitted and will decide upon the next step.

Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in considering any proposed changes as he has described, the matter of safety will remain uppermost in his mind? Will he assure the House that there will be no relaxation of safety standards?

Mr. Finsberg: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Chapman: Whatever simplifications my hon. Friend finally decides to recommend to the building regulations—I hope that they are substantial—will he assure the House that he will also be seeking to have a uniform set applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, rather than the present four different and comprehensive sets?

Mr. Finsberg: My right hon. Friend's speech was intended to apply to England and Wales, including inner London. The responsibility for the items in Scotland and Northern Ireland rests with the appropriate Secretaries of State.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the Minister give more strength to local authorities in cases where people engage builders who do an inferior job that costs £1,400 or more and then disappear so that no retribution can take place?

Mr. Finsberg: I am got sure whether there is anything helpful that I can say to the hon. Gentleman. If builders are engaged who do not do a proper job it is more the fault of those who should have ensured that they picked the right builder


in the first place. It is also for the appropriate local authority to make certain that, at least, plans that are submitted are in accordance with the regulations.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government see the issue of building control as comingwithin the wider context of the testing of building materials generally, in the light of the recent decision of the Agrement Board? Similarly, will the Government also take decisions on the future of the building research stations, which are inextricably linked to that decision?

Mr. Finsberg: We shall certainly take into account the important points that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Minister assure the House that any changes he introduces will not reduce the protection that is available to the house purchaser—such as my constituent, Mrs. Anns, and others, who were able to bring proceedings against the local borough council to recover the full loss of investment arising from defective housing that had been approved by the borough architect? Will the Minister assure the House that any changes will strengthen the position of the house buyer rather than weaken it?

Mr. Finsberg: The case of Anns v Mertonis engraved upon the hearts of many. The only assurance that I can give to the hon. Gentleman at this stage is that we have carefully noted the point that he makes. I cannot see this Government introducing any proposals that will reduce the security and safety of householders.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would be kindenough to look into the problem of a constituent of mine? He discovered that the staircase in his private house was defective and dangerous. He pulled it out and was in the process of putting another one in, which was adjudged by everybody to be a safer one, when a local official said that it did not meet the necessary specifications. He was required to indulge in structural work at great expense, which he could not afford. Does not that sort of nonsense put government, in general, into disrespect? Will my hon. Friend take some action to sort out this ridiculous situation?

Mr. Finsberg: I am not unaware of my hon. Friend's constituent's problem. Indeed, it is a problem that I encountered with a twisting staircase in my own home. The solution that I adopted was not to put in a new staircase.

Oral Answers to Questions — Inner City Policy

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the inner city programme authorities.

Mr. Heseltine: My statement on inner city policy in September last year said that we proposed to continue the partnership and programme authority arrangements in simplified form but that we should be keeping under review the basis of selection of authorities and other aspects of the programme.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept that the continuation of the schemes is vital to programme and partnership areas? It is certainly vital to my constituency. Will he consider extending the principle and, where possible, increasing the amount of money available for existing partnership areas?

Mr. Heseltine: I am looking carefully into the question of the benefit that we are getting from the particular mix of schemes which has resulted from the present urban programme. Certainly, I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have assured the House before, of my commitment to the concept of an urban programme. However, I must be sure that local people and the taxpayers who fund a substantial part of the programme are getting real value for money.

Mr. Michael Morris: Before my right hon. Friend commits more money to the inner city partnerships will he call for an audit of the empty properties in the London boroughs that are involved in the inner city partnerships?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot say that I believe that the performance of every inner London borough is of the standard that we should like. However, it is a matter for the local authorities to deal with. They are independent authorities and if there are empty houses in their areas it should be a matter for the local ratepayers, tenants and media to draw to everybody's attention.

Mr. Straw: Does the Minister realise how important the scheme has been, particularly in my constituency of Blackburn, at a time when other Government aid has been reduced? Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the extension of the programmes to the provision of industrial units, given the cutback in the provision of advance factories that has been made by his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Heseltine: The inner city urban programme is capable of being used as a contributor towards advance factory development, in terms of the derelict land clearance schemes and various other aids. It would be wrong for me to indicate that we have increases in public expenditure in mind. The priorities must be reviewed to ensure that money is being used as effectively as possible within the programmes.

Mr. Parry: Will the Secretary of State say what liaison will take place between his Department, the inner city partnership schemes and the proposed development corporations. Is he aware that I strongly support the case made by my hen. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) that more money should be spent in areas such as Liverpool, particularly in my constituency?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman would have to reconcile that suggestion with the additional taxes or interest charges that would follow. They would do much more harm to the economy of Merseyside than any benefit that would flow from the public money that he is seeking. I ask the hon. Gentleman to understand that the Government have to strike a balance. As to the relationship between my Department, the present partnership arrangements, the urban development corporation and other Government Departments, all matters that affect the policy are considered within the Government and collective decisions are taken. Therefore, a real degree of co-ordination is ensured. In addition, Ministers from other Departments attend many of the partnership committee meetings.

Mr. Major: While I recognise the problems of the inner cities, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that it is not simply a question of providing

money for them? Is he aware that in some instances there is considerable evidence that the money is not wisely spent? Before commiting more funds to the schemes will he look into the matter carefully?

Mr. Heseltine: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. Indeed, I have suggested to local authorities with which we are engaged in the partnership process that we should set up a review team in the partnership programmes. That team could consist not only of people from local authorities but from a wider base, particularly an industrial base.

Mr. Hattersley: On the subject of vacant properties within partnership areas, about which the Secretary of State has been critical, will he comment on the practice of the Birmingham council of holding properties vacant so that it may sell them in the future?

Mr. Heseltine: Local authorities are free to make decisions, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) often reminds us. I am sure that he would not wish to erode local government freedom, in contradiction to all the policy statements he makes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has received as to the average time it is taking in England to complete the sale of a council house; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine: I have no evidence as to the average time taken by local authorities to complete council house sales. I am aware that in certain areas, including my hon. Friend's constituency, there have been substantial delays in processing applications. I am considering what more I can do to help before the Housing Bill becomes law, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will shortly be in a position to help certain council house tenants in my constituency whose properties were valued in 1978–79, and who, through no fault of their own, have still not been able to complete the purchase of their houses?

Mr. Heseltine: I am very much aware of the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, and in other areas. I ask him to bear with me. I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Secretary of State accept that the sale of houses involves surveying each house, valuing it, selling it, and arranging a mortgage for it? How can that he done without taking on a vast number of extra officials, or paying solicitors to do the job, both of which involve public expenditure?

Mr. Heseltine: Of course there is a public expenditure cost. Since the gain to the people concerned is immeasurably greater I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that I am prepared to countenance this small public expenditure for the massive benefit to the tenants that will follow.

Mr. Durant: Will the Secretary of State, in his review of the matter, consider encouraging local authorities to make more use of estate agents when selling oil council houses?

Mr. Heseltine: I would encourage local authorities to make more use not only of estate agents but of all other private sector concerns, particularly solicitors. I go even further. I would encourage local government to adopt the opportunities of greater flexibility and economy that the use of private sector services could undoubtedly make available to them.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Southampton approximately 500 people wishing to purchase their council houses have been gazumped? Because of delays in completing contracts, partly due to the local authority, and partly due to his Department, those people, who have already spent considerable sums on arranging mortgages and so on, are now being asked to pay up to £3,000 above the originally agreed contract price. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?

Mr. Heseltine: I can give the hon. Gentleman two answers. I am going to make a statement shortly on the general problem. The hon. Gentleman is drawing the attention of the House to the phenomenon of the changes in house

prices that took place between the time when people originally applied to buy their houses and when the valuations took place. I am the first to regret the increases which, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, took place largely under the previous Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — House Prices

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what rise took place in house prices for each of the last four quarters.

Mr. Stanley: Seasonally adjusted, the rise in average house prices in the United Kingdom in four quarters beginning October 1978 was 7 per cent., 5½ per cent., 6½ per cent. and 6½ per cent. respectively. The fourth quarter 1979 figure will be available on 4 February.

Mr. Murphy: Bearing in mind the increase in house prices, will the Minister comment on the plight of council house tenants in Labour-controlled district councils who will have to wait upon the enactment of our legislation before they are able either to buy their council houses or gain the maximum discounts available?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that, in view of the fact that the House has now given its assent to the Second Reading of the Housing Bill by a substantial majority, those councils which are not now selling council houses will consider doing so. Otherwise, as my hon. Friend said, Labour authorities will be ensuring that tenants who buy in their area will have to pay substantially more as a result of their not having sold earlier.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister recall the promise given by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that mortgages would be pegged at 9½ per cent., given the election of a Conservative Government? Will he say when it is likely that the present mortgage level of 15 per cent. will be reduced? Will he also explain how people who are prospective and present owner-occupiers have any chance of finding the massive mortgage repayments which they are expected to pay?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman referred to prospective owner-occupiers. Any measure that would result in an artificial


reduction in the mortgage interest rate, by cutting the rate which is being paid to investors, would only ensure that there is less money available for the building societies to lend.

Mr. Stoddart: Bearing in mind these massive increases in house prices, and the increases in solicitors' and estate agents' costs, will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the exemption limit for stamp duty in his Budget?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. No doubt he will pursue the matter with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — London Docklands

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his visit to London Docklands on 14 January.

Mr. Heseltine: I found it most useful to meet leaders of the Docklands boroughs to discuss with them the problems of the area and the progress that has been made towards redeveloping it. What I saw confirmed my view that a powerful single-minded development agency is needed to build on the work that is already underway in the public sector, and to attract more private investment in housing, industry and commerce.

Mr. Hunt: Having seen the area for himself, would my right hon. Friend not agree that neglect of London's Docklands is one of the major scandals of our postwar era? As he has said, is not the setting up of the proposed development corporation the only effective way of ending the inter-borough bickering and the planning obstruction which has plagued this area for far too long? Having set up the corporation, will he ensure that adequate resources are available to it to restore and revive this decaying part of our capital city?

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I agree that the establishment of such an agency is necessary. I find it encouraging that this view is now shared widely among informed opinion on the matter in the country. I shall do my best, in the context of public expenditure restrains on the Government, to

provide the additional resources which I have no doubt are needed in the area.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am particularly grateful to him for visiting my constituency on 14 January but am sorry that he could not spend longer that 20 minutes there? Was that long enough for him to discover that there is so much activity in the designated Dockland area of my constituency that there will be literally nothing for an urban development corporation to do?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has spent more time there than I have, although, judging from what he says it is difficult to know what he has been doing. It is apparent that there are vast opportunities in that area. I hope, if the House gives a Second Reading to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, that all hon. Members will realise that the Government's sole purpose is to bring more resources and a unified central purpose to bear on a problem of crucial concern to the large numbers of people who live there, and who are suffering from the deprivation in that area.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that council members and myself were glad to meet him on the ground in my constituency? Will he now state what can be done specifically by the urban development corporation in the part of the constituency that he saw which is not already being done by the borough council?

Mr. Heseltine: Yes. It can reconcile the conflicting attitudes of the various authorities. It can obtain the release of land which is being held up and which has been under-used for a long period, and it can bring resources to bear that are not currently available.

Oral Answers to Questions — Planning Procedure

Mr. Dorrell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made with his proposals for streamlining planning procedures.

Mr. King: The Local Government, Planning and Land(No. 2) Bill will end the duplication of planning functions. There is to be a code of practice, with


time limits, on consultations about planning applications. There will be proposals for amending the general development order and for improving the efficiency of the appeals system. We are considering publishing performance indicators both for handling planning applications and appeals.

Mr. Darrell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that news will be welcomed by the many people who have had to pay more than they otherwise would have done for their new houses as a result of planning delays in the existing system and particularly delays involved in the split between district and county councils over planning?

Mr. King: We are conscious, not merely of the cost involved in the slow operation of the planning system but of the loss of employment that may result from industrial projects being held up. We are taking a number of measures that we hope will collectively help significantly to improve the operation of the system.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that planning for trunk roads is not within the province of his Department but belongs to the Department of Transport? Does he agree that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), has no right to make ex-cathedra pronouncements about the time that will elapse before a trunk road is built after the conclusion of the public inquiry? Will he confirm that that is a matter solely for the Department of Transport?

Mr. King: The planning of trunk roads is a matter for the Department of Transport. I have no knowledge of the other matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appeals procedure is cumbersome and costly for the appellant? Does he have any proposals to enable the inspectorate to give more immediate decisions?

Mr. King: We hope shortly to introduce—probably within the next two months—a system of almost immediate decision-making by inspectors in appropriate cases, where that has been agreed with the parties concerned. It will be a

significant contribution to improving the speed and operation of the planning system.

Oral Answers to Questions — Building Societies Association

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the chairman of the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Aspinwall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when last he met the chairman of the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Heseltine: I met the chairman of the Building Societies Association on 18 January and we shall meet again as appropriate. My Department has close and frequent contact with BSA representatives.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the record 15 per cent. interest charge, which is the result of this Government's wilful and misguided monetary policy, is causing severe hardship to home owners and particularly to first-time buyers? Furthermore, statements that the rate might go up to 17 per cent. are causing fear and concern. Will he make clear to building societies that the Government will not countenance an interest rate as high as 17 per cent.? Will he also give some hope that the mortgage rate will be reduced shortly?

Mr. Heseltine: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the high interest rates that prevail in the British economy. The Government are determined to do the one thing that will bring those interest rates down—reduce levels of public expenditure. Since the hon. Gentleman has shown that he shares our concern, I invite him to join us in the Lobby in support of that policy.

Mr. McCrindle: After all due concern is expressed about the high level of mortgage interest rates, does my right hon. Friend agree that far and away the greatest difficulty presented to young first-time buyers remains finding the appropriate deposit? Will he confirm that, when circumstances permit, it remains the Government's policy to try to assist in that direction, bearing in mind the good deal being offered to sitting tenants of council houses?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will remember that we referred to the desirability of such a scheme in our manifesto, but we made it absolutely clear that it had to follow improvements in the overall economic climate in this country. Nothing can change that relative priority.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In discussions with the chairman of the Building Societies Association, did the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that MLR would come down, and that, as a result, mortgage interest rates would decrease? Does he recall that in the election the Conservatives promised owner-occupiers that they would get a better deal from this Government?

Mr. Heseltine: I have not the slightest doubt that they will. Owner-occupiers will get a better deal if we can improve the economic climate and bring down the rates of inflation and interest. The Government are engaged in that battle, and the House will have an opportunity to discuss these matters. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in our decisions.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact the BSA is in favour of the limit for tax relief on mortgages being extended beyond £25,000?

Mr. Heseltine: The Government had to consider that proposal. In all the circumstances, we felt it wrong to move beyond the measures that we have already announced.

Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have treated with total contempt many of the house buyers who voted for them last May?

Mr. Heseltine: The house buyers who voted Conservative last May voted for a stable economy and the measures that are necessary to bring that about. When we come to account to them for our stewardship they will have to judge whether we have taken appropriate measures to bring that about or whether they would have done better with a party that cries for more public expenditure and which would, therefore, have forced up interest rates. The Labour Opposition have tried to renege on all the things that they were forced to do in government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ingol Distributor Road

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to give his decision following the inspector's report after the public inquiry held in Preston into the proposed Ingol distributor road.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The inspector's report is currently being considered. I hope that a decision on this can soon be given.

Mr. Thorne: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is considerable anxiety among the people of the Ashton part of Preston about the results of the inquiry? Will he undertake to expedite the decision?

Mr. Finsberg: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — London Docklands

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement concerning his plans for an urban development corporation for London Docklands.

Mr. Heseltine: I intend to make a further statement about an urban development corporation for London Docklands in the debate on the Second Reading of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of his objectives in the urban development corporation is to bring about the investment of private capital? Many millions of pounds of private capital have already been committed to housing and shops in the Beckton development area. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm either the Docklands strategic plan or that part of it relating to Beckton? Unless he does, he is frustrating his own immediate objectives.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that Newham has not given formal notice of its intention to adopt that plan, and the initiative remains with the local authority. There is no evidence—and I constantly ask hon. Members for it—that I am holding up anything at all in the London Docklands.

Oral Answers to Questions — Jobcentre (Biggleswade)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he


will reconsider his decision to allow the siting of a jobcentre at 55–57 High Street, Biggleswade.

Mr. Fox: No, Sir.

Mr. Hastings: While no one doubts the importance of the jobcentre, does my hon. Friend agree that the flexibility of choice over a site is far greater for the DOE than for the small traders who have to find a place in this, the only shopping centre? Why does he overrule the judgment of the town council and the chamber of trade? What justification can there be for that imposition? Is my hon. Friend aware that it probably costs the public a good deal more than any other solution and provides scant proof of the Government's intention to support small businesses? Will my hon. Friend please consider the proposals again?

Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend will be aware that the development of Crown land is in a special position. My right hon. Friend's only concern is to look at the planning merits of the proposed development. To that effect, a visit was made to the site. It is our information that there are empty premises in that town. With regard to the need, siting, and public expenditure implications, those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has now received about the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977; whether he is satisfied with the working of the Act; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stanley: The local authority associations and the voluntary organisations concerned have been asked for their views on the operation of the Act, but I have not yet received all their replies. I expect to do so shortly, and we shall complete the review as soon as practicable thereafter.

Mr. Dormand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the practical difficulties that many local authorities are having in implementing the Act, not least the problem of queue-jumping? May I stress that neither I nor the local authorities in my constituency are against the principles of

the Act, and we should not like to see them changed? I am pleased to see that the Minister is having consultations, but will he press strongly for improvements to be made in the Act as soon as possible?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman poses one of the central dilemmas. We have to implement the principles of the legislation and give proper statutory protection to the homeless on a basis that is fair to all, including those who have been waiting for some time for local authority accommodation. It is one of the central issues to which we shall be addressing ourselves.

Mr. Hattersley: From the replies so far received, can the Minister say what is said about the possible effect of the Housing Bill on the working of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and on homeless persons generally?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to shorthold. However, that will make no difference to the operation of the legislation. If someone becomes homeless after the Housing Bill is enacted, the position of local authorities as regards interpreting their responsibilities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act will remain unchanged.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that the Minister has misunderstood me. He was kind availability of accommodation. The Bill That will all help to solve the problem of homelessness.

Mr. Stanley: indicated dissent—

Mr. Hattersley: That was the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument a moment ago. What have local authorities had to say about that? Will the amount of homelessness be increased? Will it not result in increased pressure on the resources of local authorities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. There is no question of the Housing Bill increasing homelessness. The provisions in the Bill relating to shorthold, resident landlords and assured tenancies will increase the availability of accommodation. The Bill will also give council tenants the statutory right to sublet and take in lodgers. That will all help to solve the problem of homelessness.

Oral Answers to Questions — Council Houses (Sales)

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inquiries he has received from the public concerning his legislative proposals relating to the sale of council houses since he took office.

Mr. Heseltine: About 2,000 letters.

Mr. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I receive many letters every week, and that I have done so since the general election of last year, from council house tenants in my constituency? Does he accept that he will have to consider the possibility that some local authorities—I hope that they will not include the Scunthorpe borough council—will try to defy the law if the Bill is enacted, as I hope that it will be, later this year?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend as he has drawn the attention of the House to an important point. As I have said, I have received about 2,000 letters concerning the sale of council houses. About 90 per cent. of them indicate broad support for our policy. Indeed, the policy is well accepted and popular. Resentment and opposition to that policy comes only from the entrenched bigotry of the Labour Party.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the Secretary of State had any representations from tenants who are in substantial rent arrears who wish to know whether they have the right to purchase their dwellings? Will the Secretary of State confirm that a tenant who is in substantial rent arrears has a right to purchase his dwelling under the proposed legislation? What powers do local authorities have to refuse a mortgage under that legislation if they have considerable evidence that the tenant will find it impossible to meet mortgage repayments?

Mr. Heseltine: If the tenant is in rent arrears, he will not have the right to purchase. I go further. I advise such a tenant not to purchase. If he is incapable of keeping up with his rent payments it would be an act of ill-considered judgment to take on the responsibilities of home purchase. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the overwhelming majority of council tenants are not in arrears with rent payments. Those people will have

the right to purchase, unless the Labour Party gets its way.

Mr. Durant: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is not only socialist councils that are blocking the Bill? In my local authority, Liberals have not permitted that authority to proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Heseltine: I can well believe that. There are certain Liberals who do not yet know that the Lib-Lab pact is over?

Mr. Cryer: Why does the Secretary of State adopt this jackboot attitude towards local authorities and councils, forcing them to carry out his policies? Why does he not apply the same jackboot attitude to private landlords? Is it because they are the sort of people who contribute to Tory Party funds? If it is fair for local authorities to sell off houses why is it not fair for private tenants to have the right to buy their houses?

Mr. Heseltine: The answer is simple. The State has contributed to the cost of council houses through the revenues that it collects from the taxpayer. Therefore, the Government are entitled to make judgments about what they do with the taxpayers' assets. If I were a Labour Party Member I would concern myself with the penetration of extremists in the party before I started to talk about jackboot attitudes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Building Societies Association

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to meet the chairman of the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to my reply earlier today to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall).

Mr. Heddle: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Building Societies Association will he convey to him my constituents'gratitude—and no doubt that of many others—for the flexible and compassionate way in which the member societies have dealt with applications in cases of hardship that have been brought about by the increase in mortgage interest rates? We inherited that situation. Is he aware that we are grateful for the fact that the building societies have dealt with that problem by


freezing capital payments and allowing interest-only payments until our economy is under control?

Mr. Heseltine: The BSA has acted with the utmost responsibility and care. It has done so under various Governments. The BSA is there to help purchasers and to protect the savings of those who invest in them. I do not believe that anyone would do anything but pay tribute to it.

Mr. Budgen: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the BSA will he draw attention to the recent pamphlet issued by the Bow Group? It is there suggested that building societies should become limited companies, responsible to market forces and to shareholders. Might not that be better than persisting with the present situation in which a cartel in interest rates is operated? That cartel is not to the advantage of lenders or borrowers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes building societies peculiarly susceptible to the advice, and sometimes even the threats, of any Government?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be aware that the building societies have produced their own interim report concerning the provision of finance for the building society movement. I also have asked for a report to be made available to me. Many issues are raised. My hon. Friend has mentioned one publication that has also widened the debate. I do not accept that it works quite as my hon. Friend has said. I intend to ensure that there is a wide debate in the light of all the reports that have recently come to public attention or that will shortly do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — Electricity Converter Station (Sellindge)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to announce a decision following the public inquiry in respect of the siting of the Central Electricity Generating Board proposed converter station adjoining the village of Sellindge.

Mr. Fox: As the inspectors' report of the inquiry is not yet available, it is too early to say. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the case will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Mr. Costain: In spite of that assurance is my hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling within the village of Sellindge that the Secretary of State has already made up his mind? Is my hon. Friend aware that a secret report came out during the course of the inquiries? Will he make representations and make certain that the inspectors and the public are given access to correspondence between the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of Transport and the CEGB in July and August?

Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend and I have been in correspondence. The document that has been mentioned was inaccurate, but I understand that it has been corrected. Approval for an electricity link with France was given in principle in August 1978. However, no Government decision has been taken about any site in Britain for the proposed converter station. I am happy to confirm my previous words with him in writing.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sporting Bodies (Taxation)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any recent discussions with the principal sporting bodies in the United Kingdom concerning taxation matters.

Mr. Monro: I have had no such recent discussion. I had correspondence recently with the chairmen of the British Olympic Association and of the Central Council of Physical Recreation about one specific aspect of the taxation of sport.
I was pleased to learn that the Sports Council had instituted a general inquiry into the whole subject, and look forward to receiving its report when it is ready.

Mr. Hughes: Considering the attitude of the Minister when he was a member of the Opposition, would it not be appropriate if he was to make a stand now in favour of these tax reductions that are called for by the sports organisations?

Mr. Monro: When I receive the report I shall consider it and I shall inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer of its contents.

Oral Answers to Questions — Municipal Enterprise

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the future development of municipal enterprise.

Mr. Heseltine: I have no plans to develop municipal enterprise.

Mr. Barnett: Now that the right hon. Member has turned his back completely on the tradition of Chamberlain, is he not prepared to encourage municipal enterprise? Why has he put legislation before the House which indicates that he thinks that central Government know more than local authorities about the running of their direct labour organisations?

Mr. Heseltine: If Chamberlain had seen as much of municipal enterprise as I have, he might have had a rather different view from the one the hon. Member puts forward.

Mr. Chapman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the splendid example of municipal enterprise in the proposal for the in-house architects' department of the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea to form itself into a private consultancy? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will bring financial benefits to the ratepayers and the council, and will ensure job security for those architects?

Mr. Heseltine: I have certainly seen the suggestion that the architects employed by that authority should have the opportunity to set themselves up as a free enterprise company. This is a very interesting initiative and one which should be considered on a much wider scale.

Mr. Alton: In view of the Secretary of State's concern about the development of municipal enterprise, what advice is he prepared to give to the mayor and leader of his own local council at Henley, who resigned this week, and to the five Conservative councillors from Henley who have called a special meeting of the council to consider the development of the £3·5 million new office block being financed by the majority Conservative group on the local council?

Mr. Heseltine: It is difficult for me to comment about individual decisions of individual authorities. If I dare to trespass over the dividing lines which beset every Secretary of State, I should point out that I was concerned when the local authority in South Oxfordshire decided to move forward over the building of a new headquarters. I was not Secretary of State at the time. As the hon. Mem-

ber will remember, the council moved in that direction with the support of the Liberal vote.
I cannot comment on anything that has happened in that authority since I became Secretary of State. I can only report the facts, on which the House may care to make a judgment. There was much widespread debate. The local Conservative Party called an emergency meeting at which, by an overwhelming majority, it was decided to advise councillors not to proceed with the decision to build a new headquarters. That matter is totally within the decision of the local councillors. Some Conservative councillors have now called an emergency meeting of the council and it will be for the council—asa result of that meeting—to decide what to do. I wish to make one other point—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really have been patient with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he should finish answering the question.

Mr. Heseltine: I had only one more point to make Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, in this case we can rely on the good sense of the Conservative Party.

Later—

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the last question answered by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The fact is that hon. Members, including myself, are often refused permission to put down questions on the grounds that responsibility for the Conservative Party is not a matter for Ministers. Indeed, recently I tried to put down a question to the Prime Minister about the document called "The Right Approach"—it is rather tattered and shabby now—but I was refused permission to do so. Today the Secretary of State for the Environment discussed the internal matters of the Conservative Party—at least in his Henley constituency. It seems as if he has set a precedent. Will you let us know in due time, Mr. Speaker, whether questions relating to Conservative Party policy can now be tabled in the House since the Secretary of State for the Environment seems to want to answer them with such alacrity.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it is within the memory of the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment, having


heard his constituency mentioned, reacted in the same way as any other right hon. or hon. Member would have reacted in similar circumstances. He wanted to put the record right—in that case at any rate. It is not to be taken as a precedent that the internal affairs of either of the major parties, or indeed of any of the other parties, is a responsibility—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can see that. I am on my feet. I am about to conclude. Nobody here is personally responsible to this House for the internal affairs of any of the parties.

Mr. Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really do need your guidance. I had understood that when a Minister is a Minister he cannot divorce himself from that fact or, indeed, adopt another entity. Are we to understand now that when the Minister answers from the Dispatch Box in his ministerial capacity he can divide himself in half?

Mr. Speaker: The matter is quite simple. I recall that when I had the honour to be Secretary of State for Wales, if anyone mentioned Cardiff, West I was on my feet in a second. That is what happened today.

PICKETING

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I wish to correct a mistake. The House will recall that on Monday I gave my understanding of the reason why the judgments in the case then under discussion had not been typed more speedily. I was wrong. I have apologised to the shorthand writers and I wish to apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), in response to whose point of order I made this mistake.
It is ironic that I should have made this mistake in the context of advising others always to check the facts before commenting. What has happened to me is perhaps the best evidence of the soundness of that advice. I wish that I had followed it more carefully myself on this occasion.
I am glad to see that I made it clear that I was not criticising anybody. Now that I have had the chance to learn the

details of what has to be done from the man in charge, I would like to tell the House that I think that those concerned, who were faced with a task for which they are simply not geared—taking at short notice the judgments of a court given late on a Saturday afternoon—did remarkably well, and deserve our thanks.
Lastly, I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, West—whose home town I have the honour to represent—for his courtesy yesterday. As soon as I had made my inquiries I telephoned him, told him that I would come to the House immediately to correct the mistake if he wished, but that I would prefer to do so today, so that I might be absolutely sure of my facts this time. With that generosity typically shown by Members of this House to colleagues who have made a mistake, he readily agreed. I am most grateful to him.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thank him for his statement, which completely covers the point. I think that he will agree that the people to whom he was referring were not merely not affected by union rules; they were not even members of a trade union. In fact, they were shareholders in a private company.

GAS PRICES

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in reply to an intervention by me, the Secretary of State for Energy denied my allegation that Members of Parliament were being refused information in their own constituencies about the numbers of people receiving the new fuel benefit. The Secretary of State said:
There is no secret about the figures. They are available."—[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 1150.]
On 20 December I wrote to the local offices in my constituency requesting such information. My letters were passed to the regional office in Birmingham. Later I received a reply dated 21 January from a DHSS office in London telling me that the local information that I was seeking was not available. It claimed that the information about those who would receive the benefit locally could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.


On 24 January I wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Services complaining about the reply and claiming that Members of Parliament were entitled to know the number of people in their constituencies who were receiving the benefit.
There are two points of contention here. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for Energy misled the House. I do not blame him, but the Secretary of State for Social Services was sitting next to him and he may have prompted the reply. Secondly, why should we be refused information? It is all very well for the global figure to be given, but surely we are entitled to find out the number of people in our own constituencies who are claiming and receiving the benefit that the Government boast about.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Member to make his point of order. It was not strictly a point of order, because there is nothing that I can do about it. I am concerned with the rules of order within the House. The hon. Member must pursue that matter with the Department and through the means generally available to hon. Members.

Mr. Winnick: I apologise for pursuing the matter, Mr. Speaker. I well understand that if I want information I should seek it in the normal way. Obviously, before today I did not raise the matter

on the Floor of the House. I did so—rightly, according to procedure—through correspondence. However, it seems to me that if the Secretary of State gives information—indeed, if any Minister gives information—that is not true he should apologise to the House. The fact is that this House has been misled. I have already quoted from the Secretary of State's speech yesterday, when he said
There is no secret about the figures. They are available."—[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 1150.]
Whether they should be available or not can be pursued through correspondence, but the House has been misled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made his point quite clearly. I fully understood the point that he made, but there is nothing that I can do about it. It is not the first time, by any means, that people have thought that Ministers' answers are not satisfactory.

STEEL INDUSTRY (SOUTH WALES)

Mr. Roy Hughes: In view of the deteriorating situation in the picket lines in the steel dispute in South Wales, with mass arrests and many pickets being led away in handcuffs would it not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to make a statement about the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF FISHERIES MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 29 January.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.
Agreement was reached on total allowable catches for 1980. These are based on scientific advice, with a few minor changes to take account of arrangements with third countries and, in a very limited number of cases, other factors. The agreement takes adequate account of the vital need to conserve stocks and it will form a good basis for further decisions on an effective Community conservation policy.
Agreement was also reached on the introduction of a Community system of catch reporting. Reporting will start next month on the basis of existing procedures and a full Community system is intended to be agreed by 1 July.
The signature of the framework agreements with Norway, Spain and Guinea-Bissau were agreed. In the case of Norway, this will help strengthen the Community's links with a country whose waters provide United Kingdom fishermen with very important fishing opportunities. In the case of Spain, the Community's willingness to sign the framework agreement will, because of the reference in it to reciprocity of fishing opportunities, help the Commission in the forthcoming negotiations with the Spaniards on fishing during 1980.
Mr. Speaker, this meeting was a meeting in which significant progress was made towards agreement on a revised common fisheries policy.

Mr. Mason: First of all, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think that he has reneged on an undertaking given by the Leader of the House in a written answer on 13 July last year, at col. 302 of the Official Report, where, on total allowable catches, the Scrutiny Committee recommended that a debate

should take place before there was any agreement on TACs?
The Leader of the House confirmed that this should be so on 13 July last year. This agreement seems to be a blatant disregard of the Scrutiny Committee's request and it certainly dishonours the undertaking given by the Leader of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clear that matter up.
On the statement on catch levels for 1980, what benefits will British fishermen receive this year compared to last year? Will the right hon. Gentleman say more about proposed monitoring of reports of unloadings, of the log books revealing catch declarations, and about the checks on unloading at sea?
Following the right hon. Gentleman's discussions on national quotas—that is, the share-out—what is his quota demand for the United Kingdom? I hope that he still stands by the united view of the industry and this House on conservation, proper protection, the 12-mile exclusive zone, and the 12–50 mile dominant preference area.

Mr. Walker: The fishing industry, with whom, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) knows, we have been in close contact and whose representatives were with us in Brussels yesterday, will be disappointed with the rather sour attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards the progress that has been made. The fishing industry certainly welcomes the fact that at long last the deadlock has been broken and we can now get away from the total lack of agreement that existed under the previous Government.
As far as the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, I am anxious that the debates should take place at the earliest opportunity. The position of the Opposition and the Government has been that TACs should be based upon scientific evidence. The TACs that we negotiated successfully yesterday were all based on scientific evidence.
I cannot believe that anybody in this House would dispute that the TACs were agreed yesterday and that the fishing industry was certainly delighted at the progress that we made. Quotas and access go together. The position of the Government remains as clearly stated at the general election and since that period.


Having now agreed TACs, as a catch reporting system, we can move on to discuss quotas based not upon the rigid quota system in existence before this Government came into power but upon quotas that will take into consideration the new agreements that have been reached.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman must explain to the House why he has reneged on an undertaking given to it by the Leader of the House on 13 July last year. The fifteenth report of the Select Committee on European legislation states specifically, on total allowable catches for 1980, that in its opinion:
The following instrument raises questions of political importance and recommend that it should be further considered in this House together with other documents on fishing matters.
The Leader of the House stated quite clearly that Ministers should not agree to any legislative proposal recommended by the Scrutiny Committee for further consideration by the House before the House had given it that consideration. Why has the right hon. Gentleman reneged on that undertaking?

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to say that yesterday, on proposals tabled by the Commission a week ago—which were very much in line with the policies both of the previous Government and this one—we should not have made progress and should not have tried to reach agreement? In my judgment that would have been against the interests of the fishing industry and against the wishes of the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the existing reporting procedures? Unless they are satisfactory, the whole system of control obviously falls to the ground.

Mr. Walker: I am unable to say whether I am satisfied with existing procedures until those procedures have been put into operation and I have examined how effective they are. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that unless those procedures are properly monitored and accurate for all countries they are meaningless. One cannot judge that until one starts to see the quality and the method of starting the procedures. By starting now, with national reporting procedures, before

moving on 1 July to a Community basis, we can make any judgments and express any views to the Commission to see that there is a proper system of reporting procedures.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what the position will be under the new reporting procedures when fish are transhipped at sea to non-EEC factory ships—particularly from the Russian bloc—rather than being landed at EEC ports? Unless there are accurate records of actual catches for transhipment the whole TAC system collapses.

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend, and within the terms of the European reporting procedures that will be adopted on 1 July we shall insist that there is proper scrutiny and check of transhipments. That already happens in this country, but perhaps not in others.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Since the expression "breaking of the deadlock" has an ominous connotation for some of us in connection with Common Market negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at this stage the Government are still dealing with fisheries on the basis of a single issue, and on the basis of a settlement on limits and not on quotas?

Mr. Walker: The question of fisheries has been treated as a single issue and there has been no pressure on the Government from any source for dealing with it otherwise. The agreements made yesterday were welcomed by the wide representation of the industry that was with us in Brussels. The industry recognised that the agreement represented a perfectly sane and sensible step, and it was totally in agreement with British policy.

Mr. Silverman: As Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, may I question the Minister further about the scrutiny procedure and the Government's undertaking which has been flagrantly disregarded? In all, 18 documents relating to fisheries have been recommended for debate by the Committee. Fisheries policy was last debated in November1977. The House generally and many hon. Members with important constituency interests are affected by this issue. The Minister did not even have the courtesy to inform the Committee that he intended to agree to the proposals. Already before Christmas one of the instruments recommended for


debate was passed without the Minister, under the terms of the Government's undertaking, explaining to the House why that was done. I hope that the Minister will realise that this disregards not only the Committee but the interests of the House itself.

Mr. Walker: I have no disregard for the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, a large range of fishery questions were being debated long before the Government came into power. I have expressed my willingness to debate the whole range of major issues that are at stake. Certainly I would very much like to debate this one, because, as far as I know, there is no disagreement on it between any of the parties in the House.

Mr. Pollock: In view of the welcome statement by my right hon. Friend about the progress of a revised fisheries policy, may we take it that it gives the lie to those who suggest that there may be a sell-out of British fishing interests in any future general negotiations about the European Community budget?

Mr. Walker: Certainly there never has been and never would be any question of a sell-out on the basis of negotiating in other areas. I can say, in fairness, that none of the other Community countries concerned has ever suggested that if we gave way on fishing it might consider giving way on other issues. There has always been straightforward negotiation, and at yesterday's meeting and the meeting before that progress was made in total compliance with the policy on fishing that is pursued by the Government and supported by the Opposition.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the Minister think that the present system of reporting fish catches is anything short of an absolute abject farce? Is he aware that the White Fish Authority's current paper indicates that last year Britain succeeded in exporting twice as much mackerel as it succeeded in catching, and that catch figures are provided by the Russians? Why should we believe that the European system will be 1 per cent. better than this miserable farce, which is wrecking the West Country fishing industry?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the only way in which we shall conserve good fishing in the South-

West is to develop a sensible system of catch reporting. Without it, fishing in this country and in Europe will be finished within a short period. Therefore, unless there is an effective and properly policed system of reporting, the deterioration of fishing here and abroad will persist. Yesterday we agreed on an attempt to create such a system.

Mr. McQuarrie: Was there any discussion in Brussels about cheap fish imports into Britain? There is considerable unrest in the fishing industry about this. Yesterday 1,000 boxes of fish were left unsold on the quay at Peterhead, in my constituency, through their failure to reach a proper price as a result of cheap fish imports. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is to be a protest meeting on Saturday, which 600 members of the fishing industry propose to attend in protest at the current position of the Scottish industry?

Mr. Walker: I am well aware of the meeting planned for Saturday and of the anxiety of the industry about imports. I have met the industry and made it perfectly clear that if there is evidence of dumping we can take appropriate measures. There have always been times, of course, when prices at markets have not reached the required levels, and that has not necessarily been as a result of dumping here of surplus foreign stocks. The fishing industry knows that I am anxious to review and examine the matter with it. I hope that in the future there will be many examples of the British industry exporting fish. If that happens and the prices paid in foreign markets for domestically caught fish are not particularly good I would not expect our industry to be accused of dumping.

Mr. Jay: As the Minister's procedure here was a clear breach of undertakings given to the House and undermines the whole Scrutiny Committee system, will he at least given an assurance that he and the Leader of the House will ensure that it does not happen again?

Mr. Walker: I am most anxious that any topic concerning my Department should be debated in the House, I would always welcome that. I have made clear that I am perfectly willing and anxious to discuss these fishing questions. Under the previous Government a whole range


of issues were discussed in this way, and I hope that there will soon be discussions.

Mr. Sproat: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved so far. Did he tell our European partners of the deep concern felt by the British industry at the hidden subsidies and indirect support given to the fishing industries of our European competitors? If so, what did they say about it?

Mr. Walker: With the help of the fishing industry, we are currently updating information on the question of subsidies of various types. There is a range of subsidies which vary in effect. Some of them operate in this country. Our objective is to see that our fishing industry is not confronted with unfair competition from other countries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulation. Congratulations in respect of any progress that has been made deserve to fall upon my hon. Friend the Minister of State more than on anyone else, for his having done so much of the detailed organisation.

Mr. Torney: In view of the Minister's assurance that there will be no sell-out of the British fishing industry, will he bear in mind that 60 per cent. of the Community catch is taken in British waters? Will he therefore ensure that British trawlermen get at least the 45 per cent. of that total catch that they are demanding, and not the 25 per cent. that we understand the French want us to have?

Mr. Walker: On the question of quotas and access, the fishing industry knows full well that in all these negotiations we will remain close to it and have it by us before meetings and at meetings when we discuss this matter. Our fishing industry is well aware that it is immensely to its advantage to have agreement on a common fishing policy. For conservation of the fish it hopes to catch in the future it is vital that a European conservation policy is agreed to.

Mr. Beith: It worries me that agreements with third countries that are in the interests of other member countries should go ahead before agreement on the fundamentals has been reached.

Mr. Walker: Before saying that, the hon. Gentleman should examine the agreements reached. Norway's main vested interest is the United Kingdom. On Spain, there is a massive interest for United Kingdom fishermen in having a framework agreement that would be the basis of negotiation with the Spaniards. It may be an agreement that the Spaniards reject, but whether they reject or approve it it will help in our negotiations with Spain. Guinea-Bissau is not of direct interest to United Kingdom fishermen.
On the problems of quotas and access, a further available quantity of fish—although it is not available to the United Kingdom—should be taken into consideration in the total balances. It is in the interests of the United Kingdom fishermen to come to these agreements.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising. I say that to save their frustration.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I welcome my right hon. Friend's confirmation that any agreement on the common fisheries policy will be reached on its own merits, and will not be part of a wider trade-off, but is he in a position to give an assurance that the proposal for agreement is not wholly to be based on a system of quotas but will take some account of exclusive areas or limits, especially to safeguard the interests of the inshore fishing fleets?

Mr. Walker: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The question that I wished to put to the Minister has already been fairly well answered.

Mr. Speaker: That is excellent. I shall remember that.

Mr. Prescott: I warn the Minister against relying too much on the warm remarks from the fishing industry, whose members welcomed our entry into the Common Market and then changed their mind. The real issue that concerns Humberside is that there is no longer a guarantee that there will be a debate on fishing matters before the negotiations are concluded. Will the Minister tell the House whether, in the negotiations, he reached any understanding that there would be a more favourable response on the proportion of fish to come to the United Kingdom, rather than agreement


in respect of the total Community in such a package?

Mr. Walker: The items on which we were trying to make progress yesterday were those of the total reliable catch and catch reported. At the next meeting we shall move on to the items mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. With all of the uncertainties and difficulties faced by Humberside, I believe that people there will be pleased that we made progress yesterday and can move on, whether we agree or not, to deal with those topics of fundamental interest, and that we are not still dealing with the topics that were settled yesterday.

Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the considerable energies that he and his right hon. Friends have put into the negotiations, together with the first signs of success, will be warmly welcomed? Is he further aware that there is great hope in Scotland that their energies will be turned now to dealing with the problem of the amount of catch that is allowed to be caught but that is not being sold at the pier heads because of imported fish'? If he wishes proof of that, he will find it at Chester House in Edinburgh today, in unsold fish.

Mr. Walker: We recognise the anxieties over imports, the current price position and other problems, such as input costs of energy. The Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself are in close consultation with the industry on these topics.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister accept, first, that he has treated the Scrutiny Committee and the House with gross discourtesy? Secondly, does he agree that there are many who would not totally accept the marine biologist's agreement on total reliable catches? Thirdly, does he accept that the method of providing information to the member States on catches landed is wholly inadequate, unless there is an effective licensing system?
If the right hon. Gentleman goes to the next set of negotiations before there has been an effective debate in the House, he will be treating the House with gross contempt.

Mr. Walker: I have already said that I am anxious, happy and willing to debate

the whole range of fishing issues at the earliest opportunity.
It is the total ignoring of modern marine biologists and scientific evidence that has resulted in the fishing industry of this country and other countries not being able to catch herring and other fish for a considerable number of years. That total ignoring and contempt of the scientific facts has been of great detriment to the fishing industry.

Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are more likely to achieve a sensible fishing policy if the House welcomes rather than grouches at the fact that success has taken place? Does he further agree that if we wish for the support of the fishing industry in constituencies such as mine, we should ensure that the reporting techniques and the monitoring of that information is available to those fisherman so that they can see that it is fair, and properly monitored?

Mr. Walker: The fishing industry would be shocked at the reaction of some hon. Members, which is totally different from the industry's reaction to yesterday's events.
On the reporting of catches and the evidence of negotiations, I believe that no Government has ever worked closer to an industry throughout a negotiation than we have over the past few months.

Dr. David Clark: It has been the traditional argument that the quota for Britain should include not only our traditional share of the European market but a considerable allowance for our loss on third country markets. Is that still the basis of the Government's continuing negotiations?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the many breaches that have taken place on current quota and conservation arrangements—not only with mackerel but in connection with the ban on herring fishing in the North Sea—have totally undermined the industry's confidence in the current conservation policies?
There will not be an acceptable conservation policy in the Community unless


there is a comprehensive system of licensing, with higher penalties and effective national enforcement.

Mr. Walker: The whole movement must be towards an effective system of catch reporting. National Governments should decide on a sensible system, under which they can operate effectively. If they do not, those Governments must be penalised for that failure. The nature, the degree and the method of operation must be left to the national Governments to decide. That will vary from country to country.

Mr. Mason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The words of the Leader of the House have been dishonoured. The Minister has blatantly disregarded the recommendations of the Select Committee on European legislation. He has dishonoured a Government agreement.
I wish to raise the point of order in the presence of the Leader of the House. If only for his good name, he should revert to the escape clause, namely, that if there are exceptional circumstances—and there are not in this case—and he circumvents a Government undertaking, he is obliged to make a personal statement to the House explaining why he so acted. I hope that he will make that statement at the earliest opportunity.

TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees and to establish a Parliamentary Television Unit to control the televising, provide feeds and recordings to outside organisations and maintain an electronic Hansard.
The Bill, which proposes to set up a parliamentary television unit and provide an electronic Hansard, is a belated adjustment to two modern developments.
A modern Parliament is no longer a closed debating chamber in which Members seek to sway the opinion of other Members. In a modern mass democracy we have a system of government by party, in which a party is elected to govern—or in this case misgovern—and another party opposes. The House is, essentially, the stage on which that party battle is fought. It is the great forum of this nation in which the issues of the day, such as steel and gas, are debated and the arguments are put before the people.
Those functions make communication with the world outside essential, but we are not communicating. We are a stage which few watch and a forum which few hear. Can we wonder if there is ignorance and alienation and if our constituents have so little knowledge of what goes on and what we are doing and discussing in the House? They do not know, because we exclude them.
We put our constituents in the position of the tennis enthusiast who has to find out about Wimbledon by standing outside and hearing the plop of the ball and seeing the victors interviewed on television afterwards, but who is not allowed to see the centre court action which makes or breaks.
People are not allowed to see, because in a modern society most people rely on television for most of their news and information about current affairs. It is no good our saying that they should queue to sit in the Gallery, pay £8 a volume for Hansard, or read the garbled accounts of our proceedings in the quality papers. They will not do that. We have to go to them on the medium that they rely on for their news.
It is because that medium cannot cover Parliament that it has started its own alternative political forum, which is one in which we operate on television's terms and in which it sets the framework of debate. Television decides the issues and, by a sort of Gresham's law of politics, the tele-politics drive out good politics, and people know nothing of the sort of politics that go on here because that is closed to them.
Hon. Members may argue that people have access to the radio, but that is not an appropriate medium. It is appropriate for continuous coverage, because it is cheap, but, for the rest, the microphones pick up every extraneous noise and give the impression of chaos and disorder of a sort that you, Mr. Speaker, would never allow. The listener is infuriated by radio because he cannot see what is going on. [Interruption.] If hon. Members have that low a view of the dignity of the House, it is appropriate that they should vote against the Bill.
I believe that it is appropriate that people should see what goes on in the Chamber. It would certainly show that we are not as bad as we sound on the radio, it will show the reality of the Chamber, which is impressive in most respects and certainly more than fit to be shown, and it will repair the damage that has been done by radio.
Surveys of public opinion show that the people of this country want television coverage of Parliament. It is not a burning desire, but the majority want to see it on television. We are refusing it basically because we fear the medium.
I propose that we allow television coverage, not on television's terms, but on our terms and under our control, and that we should do so by following the successful precedent of Canada where television, after being feared, is accepted. Even the opponents of television there now wonder, as we shall here, why it took so long to introduce it.
The essence of success is the setting up of a parliamentary television unit, working through half a dozen remote control cameras in various parts of the House—with no crews in the Chamber—and with minimal lighting. It would be slightly brighter than the present lighting, but the House can be unconscionably dim at times.
The cameras would work on a mid-shot of the Member who has Mr. Speaker's eye and they would follow the eye of Mr. Speaker. There would be no cut aways. I appreciate that hon. Members fear cut aways as much as coverage and I recognise that all the elements of human activity and inactivity can take place on our Benches. That will not be shown. The coverage will be of the hon. Member who has Mr. Speaker's eye.
That record will be available on disc, as the technology allows, and on tape—it is surprising to note from the Canadian experience how many people want to see tapes of what goes on. It will be available full time to enable subscribers, and the medium of cable television will expand enormously in the 1980s, and as a feed to the BBC and ITV.
That will guarantee coverage and the minimum of change to the House. It is not proposed to change the Chamber into an overflow studio facility for ITV and BBC, with Mr. Speaker as the floor manager. This is, and will remain, a debating Chamber and hon. Members will be addressing the Chamber. They will succeed or fail by the techniques appropriate to addressing the Chamber and not by the different techniques and histrionics of speaking in a studio.
Television coverage on that basis will give no more encouragement to the exhibitionists in the House than the techniques of the Chamber already do. As for those hon. Members who might spend two hours applying make-up before speaking, it will make no difference to them. They will continue to do it, as they do now.
This is a serious attempt to bring the House to the people and to bring us into line with the European Parliaments that allow coverage by television and with the two-score legislatures around the world who have accepted television in their Chambers.
We cannot afford to put ourselves in the position of saying, as we sometimes appear to say—that either our proceedings are so awful that they must be kept from the people or that the people are too stupid to comprehend what goes on in the Chamber.
This is a Chamber of serious discussion of serious issues that affect our people


and their lives, and in which the arguments are put on their behalf. They will be the better for seeing it.
Without television, a gulf opens up between Parliament and the nation outside. With it we would be the stronger because the people would know what we are doing and why we are doing it. We would be speaking directly to them, and that would make the legislature more relevant and stronger against the Executive.
With television coverage of our proceedings we will put the House where it belongs. Hon. Members who are laughing obviously have an odd idea of where it belongs. Perhaps they belong there too. The House belongs at the centre of this nation's attention and affairs. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Stokes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not believe that my opposition to the Bill will come as much of a surprise to hon. Members.
Television is an extension of broadcasting and in a short time we have seen what a disaster that has proved in the House, particularly in relation to Prime Minister's Question Time, which has now been dropped from the radio coverage.
We must never forget that television is essentially a branch of show business. It must entertain continuously. By its very nature, it exaggerates the sensational, the trivial and the scandalous. It must do the same here.
Imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the background noise, the scenes, the angry exchanges across the House, the rows. Television is bound to emphasise all those, at the expense of the real, solid and serious work that we do in the Chamber, in Committee or outside the Palace altogether.
Hon. Members will try to hog the cameras. We saw that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) did just that in his recent television performance when

the other two hon. Members on the programme did not get a word in.
Television is obsessed with irrelevant details. It will show hon. Members' dress, behaviour, yawns and the occasional nap. The dresses and hats of our Lady Members will be featured, as will be the sartorial eccentricities of our more flamboyant male colleagues. Those hon. Members who are inclined to show off will be even more tempted to do so as a result of the cameras being in the Chamber.
Our constituents will be seen peering into the screen to see if their Member is present, not realising that much good work is done not only in the Chamber, but in the Smoking Room, in Committee and outside. If television comes here, hon. Members will have to rehearse their speeches at home in front of the mirror as a prelude to acting out their parts here. They will be judged more on their public performance as actors than on their real work.
My main objection to television is that the presence of cameras here will fundamentally alter the character of this place. The intimate atmosphere such as we are experiencing now—the cut and thrust of debate—will change into a spectacle of the hustings before an audience of 55 million people.
I notice that the Press Gallery is much fuller than it was a few minutes ago. The press consider this to be a matter of tremendous importance because it concerns them. It is not an important matter at all. In the greatest days of this country, the proceedings of Parliament were not allowed to be published. In those great days, deeds mattered more than words. Today, in our less great days, we suffer from a plethora of news and comment that goes on endlessly.
We pray each week that we may be godly, and quietly governed. I believe that if we televise our proceedings, we will be governed by catcalls, shrieks, hysteria, shouting, gestures and all manner of demonstrations. I sincerely hope that the House will have none of it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided:—Ayes 201, Noes 201.

Division No. 148
AYES
[4.22 pm


Aitken, Jonathan
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Needham, Richard


Alexander, Richard
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Nelson, Anthony


Allaun, Frank
George, Bruce
Newton, Tony


Alton, David
Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gorst, John
Palmer, Arthur


Ancram, Michael
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hannam, John
Pendry, Tom


Aspinwall, Jack
Haselhurst, Alan
Penhaligon, David


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hesley, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heller, Eric S.
Race, Reg


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Henderson, Barry
Radice, Giles


Beith, A. J.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rathbone, Tim


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Home Robertson, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Homewood, William
Rhodes James, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hooson, Tom
Ridsdale, Julian


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Horam, John
Robertson, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howells, Geraint
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rost, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Butcher, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Canavan, Dennis
Kinnock, Neil
Sheerman, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Knox, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Carmichael, Neil
Lambie, David
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamont, Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lee, John
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Colvin, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cope, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soley, Clive


Cranborne, Viscount
Litherland, Robert
Speller, Tony


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Sproat, Iain


Crouch, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Dalyell, Tam
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Straw, Jack


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Temple-Morris, Peter


Dixon, Donald
McNally, Thomas
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dobson, Frank
McQuarrie, Albert
Tinn, James


Dorrell, Stephen
McWilliam, John
Torney, Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Major, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Dubs, Alfred
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Viggers, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Eadle, Alex
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Watkins, David


Eastham, Ken
Mates, Michael
Watson, John


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maxton, John
Whitney, Raymond


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Farr, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Field, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wright, Sheila


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris,Michael (Northampton, Sth)



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Foster, Derek
Neale, Gerrard
Mr. Peter Bottomley.


Foulkes, George






NOES


Abse, Leo
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Anderson, Donald
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)


Ashton, Joe
Bowden, Andrew
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Budgen, Nick


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Burden, F. A.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Bell, Sir Ronald
Brinton, Tim
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brotherton, Michael
Campbell, Ian







Cant, R. B.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Park, George


Channon, Paul
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Patten, John (Oxford)


Churchill, W. S.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Pawsey, James


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Porter, George


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
John, Brynmor
Proctor, K. Harvey


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cowans, Harry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Crowther, J. S.
Kerr, Russell
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lang, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Dormand, Jack
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Michael
Snape, Peter


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Spriggs, Leslie


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Elliott, Sir William
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stanley, John


Emery, Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Steen, Anthony


Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stevens, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Fell, Anthony
McCusker, H.
Stokes, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Strading Thomas, J.


Ford, Ben
MacGregor, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Forrester, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Tebbit, Norman


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Madel, David
Thompson, Donald


Freud, Clement
Marland, Paul
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Trotter, Neville


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mather, Carol
Wakeham, John


Ginsburg, David
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Warren, Kenneth


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weetch, Ken


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wellbeloved, James


Graham, Ted
Moate, Roger
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molyneaux, James
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Greenway, Harry
Monro, Hector
Wheeler, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Grist, Ian
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Wickenden, Keith


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wolfson, Mark


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mudd, David
Young, David (Bolton East)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Myles, David



Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hawksley, Warren
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and


Heddle, John
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

The numbers being equal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In order to give the House an opportunity to reconsider this matter, I cast my vote with the Ayes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. John Watson and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the televising

of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees and to establish a Parliamentary Television Unit to control the televising, provide feeds and recordings to outside organisations and maintain an electronic Hansard: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 March and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

Mr. Stanley Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the usual practice when there is a tied vote for the occupant of the Chair to cast his vote in favour of the status quo?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On a matter of this kind—and I gave it serious thought, because it occurred to me that something like this might happen—it is right and according to precedent to give the House a further opportunity to discuss the matter again.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you not reconsider? Should you not always leave the whole matter open to the House? By casting your vote as you have, you have not left it open to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My vote does leave the matter open to the House. This is not simply a motion. The vote does not dispose of the matter finally. It dealswith the introduction of a Bill, which comes forward for further consideration by the House. It can then be approved or rejected.

SOLOMON ISLANDS, TUVALU AND KIRIBATI

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a clock to the National Parliament of Solomon Islands and gifts of gavel sets to the Houses of Assembly of Tuvalu and Kiribati, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
The gifts follow an established and very happy tradition that we make presentations from this House to the legislatures of newly independent Commonwealth countries. The Speakers of the respective legislatures were, of course, consulted about the form that the gifts should take. The gifts are now ready for presentation and are on display in the Upper Waiting Hall of the House, where they will remain for inspection by hon. Members until 1 February.
If the House passes the motion, as I am confident it will, I hope that arrangements will be made by Mr. Speaker to send a small delegation from the House to present the gifts.
I commend the motion to the House, in the expectation that it will be accepted as an expression of friendship and good will towards the legislatures of these sister Commonwealth countries. I know that I shall be speaking for the whole House in expressing our warmest good wishes for the future to the National Parliament of Solomon Islands and to the House of Assembly of Tuvalu and the House of Assembly of Kiribati.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: We on the Opposition Benches wish to associate ourselves fully with the motion. All three territories covered by it have long and close associations with this country. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have debated the issues involved in the territories' development towards independence. I am one of the small number of hon. Members who have actually been to all three. Tuvalu and Kiribati are probably better


known to the vast majority of the British people as the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
The motion is an important symbolic demonstration of the continued interest that the House will have in these small, independent territories. It is also a symbol of, and a tribute to, the democratic and parliamentary traditions that all three territories are maintaining and upholding. The gifts represent our support for, endorsement of, and backing for the democratic and parliamentary traditions of three small territories set in the middle of seas that are hostile at times, in conditions that are most difficult.
Kiribati was the subject of some contention and discussion in the House in relation to the Banaban people of Ocean Island—matters which are still unresolved. Nevertheless, I am sure that all Members of the House will give the motion their full support.

Sir Bernard Braine: I should like to endorse the sentiments expressed in such a felicitous way by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). There cannot be a Member of this House who does not wish to be associated with this delightfuland traditional gesture. But, as one who has visited at least one of the territories concerned and who has been occupied in the past five years in trying to achieve justice for a small community which is now incorporated—against the will of its members, if I may say so—in that territory, may I take the opportunity of expressing the hope that, before the delegation departs for the warm waters of the Pacific on its mission of good will, the Government will strain every nerve to see that the outstanding claims of the Banaban community, which still remain undetermined, are settled. In that event, nobody will be more delighted than I to support the motion before the House.
Those peoples on the other side of the world are linked in friendship and sentiment with us for all time, and I wish them well and god-speed.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

ACCEPTANCE OF OBJECTS IN CERTAIN BUILDINGS
'In paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Finance Act 1975 in sub-paragraph (3) (Buildings in relation to which objects may be accepted) there shall be inserted after paragraph (d) the following "or
(e) if the building is one approved for the time being for the purposes of this paragraph by the Ministers".'.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this new clause it will be convenient to take the following:

New clause 7—Significance of objects in their Settings.

New clause 8—Consultations on Acceptance and Disposal of Objects in certain circumstances.

New clause 10—Acceptance of significant objects in certain buildings.

Government amendment No. 50.

Amendment No. 33, in clause 12, page 7, line 37, at end insert—
'(bb) in sub-paragraph (4) (approval by Treasury of objects to be accepted) in paragraphs (a) and (c) after the words "artistic interest" in both places where they occur there shall be inserted the words "or is of significance in or to a setting with which it already has significant historical association;".'.

Mr. Dalyell: Objects can be accepted in lieu of tax under powers contained in two sub-paragraphs of paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975.
Under sub-paragraph (4), objects have to be of pre-eminent quality, and it is under that power that objects are accepted and go to museums and galleries. Whilst there has been plenty of arguments as to


whether an object would be a pre-eminent addition to this or that museum, we do at least have quite a lot of experience, and, given that Ministers will take the right advice, the pre-eminence test may be the right way of reaching a decision in the museum context.
But the other sub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (3), provides a power to accept objects in relation to certain classes of buildings, and it may be more appropriate to use that than to deal with this matter under pre-eminence where the intention is that objects are retained "in situ on loan".
The problem which must now be faced and solved—and how glad I am to see the Minister of State, Treasury among us—and to which reference in the Bill is highly desirable is the dispersal of contents from buildings that do not fall into any of the classes already set out in sub-paragraph (3)—substantially privately owned country houses. Here, if an owner wants to pay tax by way of the surrender of, say, a picture of great quality, he can do so if it passes the preeminence test with the result that the picture is whipped away to a museum, where doubtless its pre-eminent quality will be much appreciated.
The trouble is that the setting from which the picture has been taken will be the poorer, and the picture may even diminish in interest from being removed from its historic setting. This is particularly so with furniture designed to fit into a scheme of decoration—and I referred on Second Reading to the Hopetoun case in the West Lothian constituency.
Of course, the previous owner will derive great pleasure from the leaving in situ of objects after he has surrendered them in satisfaction of tax—who would not be glad to keep an old friend?—but, provided that there is reasonable public access and the property is advertised, and so on, that pleasure will be shared with many thousands of visitors. I think that all of us who served on the Standing Committee were agreed on the importance of that.
There is another aspect of leaving in situ. We have to be careful not to pull all our great pictures, and so on, into our cities, particularly into our national museums in London and Edinburgh.

To do so is not only to increase the magnetism of the cities for tourists—some think that there are too many tourists in London already perhaps—but is also to diminish the attractiveness of our country houses and, through them, the other parts of Britain generally. The aim here has to be to diversify tourism by leaving great works of art, and so on, in the areas of Britain where that is appropriate.
Of course, leaving works of art in the areas outside London does not necessarily imply leaving them in country houses if they are to be surrendered in satisfaction of tax. There are local museums, and in many instances it will be appropriate to house such works of art in them. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) stressed in Committee the importance of this in his own constituency. But, even so, it is now appreciated that country houses should be accepted almost as an extension of the local museum service.
To come back to the amendments, the solution offered is to provide in subparagraph (3) a catch-all power under which Ministers can, when, say, a picture is offered in lieu of a tax debt, approve a specific building and so allow themselves to accept the picture with the intention of leaving it in situ. Naturally, and rightly, Ministers will not wish to use this new power except in circumstances where they want to see the picture, or whatever, kept in its setting or restored to it. In case the first new clause is thought to be too wide, a second version has been tabled with a proviso in it containing the appropriate reference to the significance of the object in or to the building with which it already has historical association.
All this apart, it should be remembered that whatever is left in situ will be there on loan, so that it can be taken away if the situation changes. Of course, there will be security and indemnity questions to solve, but these are relatively minor problems compared with the central problem of the power to act, which is provided by the amendments.
New clause 7 quite rightly recognises that the trustees should look most carefully at the status of objects in their settings before they assist intending purchasers with grants so that they are not removed to museums and so on when that


would be the wrong solution. I support new clause 7.
New clause 8 applies in the situation where Ministers are considering, first, acceptance and, second, disposal of objects accepted in satisfaction of tax, and it is right to stipulate that consultation should take place as early as is necessary: that is, the right to start negotiations. With the seal of unnecessary confidentiality thrown over negotiations at the acceptance stage, of which we heard in Committee, it will be difficult to see that the right thing is done.
As regards Government amendment No. 50, the new Government amendment, I have already commented on its effect of bringing into consideration "leaving in situ" only at the disposal stage. I really feel that earlier consideration is most necessary and that this must be permitted, not only with experts but with the trustees of the fund, the Historic Buildings Council, the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and other appropriate bodies, and possibly this is implied in new clause 8.
I also refer to what is possibly a serious omission in Government amendment No. 50. There is no reference to objects being restored to the place with which they have significant association. Again, new clause 8 is the model and I ask Ministers to look at this and amend their own amendment. This issue of restoration is rather important and I hope that the Government will look at it in the later stages that remain to us.
But I come back to consultation and confidentiality. There must be consultation at an early stage, or
significance in a historic setting
or whatever will not be properly weighed. This is all the more important because the Government have not come up with their own version of new clause 10 or with an amendment on the lines of amendment No. 33, which I also support.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It seems that the arguments deployed in Committee on the importance of the in situ provisions have been hand-somely recognised by the Government in amendment No. 50, which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy

of Lancaster. Although the amendment stands in my right hon. Friend's name, it is right and proper to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who guided the Bill through Committee on behalf of the Government, listened carefully to our arguments and promised to return with answers on Report.
It is important that objects which have a particular association with a special place, and which derive much of their interest and significance from that association, should have that factor taken into account when their final resting place is being determined. That is a factor that has been recognised by successive Governments. It was recognised by the previous Labour Government when they produced their WhitePaper in 1979. It has been recognised by the present Government. However, in Committee we did not feel that it was spelt out clearly enough. Our arguments have now been taken into account, and it will be incumbent upon the trustees to consider the historical associations of objects.
We said in Committee that the issue of pre-eminence could be extremely misleading. That which is pre-eminent in a provincial country house is not necessarily pre-eminent in a great national institution. It is important that that should be recognised.
It is important, too, that we should not always remove an object from its setting if it has been surrendered in lieu of tax. However, it is appropriate for certain objects of international importance to be placed in the National gallery or elsewhere. Those of us who take this line do not say that never at any time should anything go to a museum when surrendered in lieu. We argue that it is important to consider historical background and association.
It seems that the Government are seeking to recognise that factor and to do what my hon. Friends and I are seeking to introduce in the new clauses that have been grouped with new clause 2. I rest content. I thank my right hon. Friend for his response.

Mr. J. Grimond: I welcome Government amendments Nos. 50 and 33. I speak as an ex-secretary of the National Trust for Scotland. One of our fears was always


that the most valuable and essential features of houses, gardens or other items offered to us would be removed from their natural position by, for example, a museum or sold by the owners. I welcome the provision contained in the new clause, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) in Committee. One of my reasons for welcoming the Bill is that I hope that it will allow houses and other places where various works of art have been built up together to be preserved as a whole.
I consider that a good deal of nonsense is talked about our national heritage. It sometimes appears to consist of Italian pictures, French furniture and German porcelain. It seems to be valued exclusively on the ground of how much it will fetch on the wholly bogus international art market.
I take the belated opportunity of congratulating the previous Labour Government on refusing to buy the whole of Mentmore, lock, stock and barrel. It was accumulated by an eminent Austrian. It came into our heritage, if it ever came into it at all, comparatively late.
I am campaigning against stuffing cellars in galleries with pictures and other objects. It is becoming a matter of prestige for every body of trustees and every curator to spend as much money as possible, regardless of the number of objects that are already under their control and very often, to my mind, regardless of the beauty of the objects that they are accumulating.
The test of those who talk a great deal about our national heritage is whether they are willing to return some Canalettos to Venice. They would be extremely pleasent to look at if they were there. We need not go so far as to return the Elgin Marbles. If we really care about our national heritage and the heritage of others, we should not be so selfish as to refuse to return certain items elsewhere.
Valuable porcelain, pictures and furniture will not be destroyed if they are not placed in the cellars of galleries. They will not be torn up or burnt. There are a great many extremely pleasant houses, churches and other buildings of various types, as well as attractive parts of towns and a great deal of pleasant countryside, that will be destroyed if we do not do

something. Even if they are not physically destroyed, they will be broken up in such a way that they will lose their beauty and significance.
In the Government amendments there is much reference to "significant association". In my experience as an ex-secretary of the National Trust for Scotland, there are a great many houses that are beautiful but not significant. They have rooms that are extremely pleasant as rooms. Their carpets, hangings and decorations are really all of one piece. Will such houses come within the Government amendments? I cannot say that they are especially significant. They are simply beautiful. They are pleasant to look at. A great many people enjoy them. I recognise that they may not be of great historical importance, but I hope that they will come under the heading "significant".
I understand that power will be given to keep in their place objects that fall within the terms of the new clause and amendments. There are other objects which occasionally come on to the market. They are bought by public authorities or they are offered to them. These objects are not necessarily associated with places, but with families. Can they be returned to suitable places? For example, there are many objects associated with Marlborough and Wellington. Although certain objects may never have been in houses occupied by the two dukes, will they be offered to the appropriate houses?
Furthermore, there are personal possessions which, to my mind, would be best kept in houses associated with those concerned, even though they may have no direct association with those houses or places.
There is a provision that Ministers must obtain expert advice. I am extremely chary of expert advice and anything to do with aesthetics. It seems that some experts value objects according to their significance, their date and the view of other experts rather than according to their beauty. For example, I do not know how many people went to look at Rennie Mackintosh's desk, which was exhibited in London not long ago. It was bought for £80,000. It is a significant object. I find it difficult to describe it as extremely beautiful. I have the highest admiration for those who bought it for


the under-bidder, the Louvre, and I recognise the importance that it has in the history of furniture. However, one would need the advice of a few other than experts before laying out £80,000 on it.
Experts have a strong resemblance to magpies. They adore accumulating stuff. I took part in debates in the House on the future of the Lane pictures. It became apparent that the curator of the Tate gallery was determined to keep them. To my mind there was no doubt but that the Lanes should go back to Dublin. The curator was determined to get his handson them even though he had plenty of French pictures.
The wretched Shetlanders once let out of their hands the treasure that had been discovered on St. Ninian's Isle. Had it not been for the surprising honesty of the British museum, the Shetlanders would have found it sucked into the Edinburgh galleries before they could say "knife". However, it ended up in those hands, and many people regret that to this day.
I hope that when the Government consult they will include in their consultations the local people. I hope, too, that they will take steps to ascertain how much pleasure certain houses are giving and how many people visit them.

5 pm

Can these objects go out on loan? If so, does that open up the places in which they may ultimately be placed by the commissioners? For instance, would it be possible to lend these objects permanently to private houses which are open to the public? There are, perhaps, many objects of art which might be returned to some of the great houses in England which are not under public control. Does the Bill give power to lend those houses collections of works of art? Can such items be offered to churches? For instance, now and again it might be possible to reunite such things as screens in churches. Is that possible under the Bill, because the uniting of works of art that have been severed might greatly enhance the value and beauty of each object.

Can such objects be given to local trusts, as has already been mentioned? Is it possible for the Government to give any assistance in relation to insurance? What prohibits many local trusts from

keeping valuable objects is the possible cost of insurance. Will the Government insist that objects of art loaned out are insured, and, if so, is it possible that the Government will assist with the payment for insurance?

With those questions and few remarks, I greatly welcome the clause and the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am delighted that we have had a contribution from the Liberal Bench. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked some interesting questions and I am sure that the Minister will answer them in due course.
I felt that the right hon. Member was being a little provocative—perhaps that is his purpose in the debate this afternoon. Hadhe been party to the Committee proceedings, he would have known—I believe that all my colleagues will agree with me—that we were not concerned with Italian paintings, French furniture or German porcelain. We covered the whole range of the heritage and concentrated more on landscapes—the original concept of Hugh Dalton—historic houses in all parts of the United Kingdom and objects of historical significance to certain localities. The right hon. Gentleman should have read the Committee proceedings. Some of his questions might have been answered had he done so. He would have known that we were not specifically concerned with what we had managed to collect and collar from the four corners of the world.

Mr. Grimond: The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is an extremely unprovocative man. Therefore anything that touches on controversy is no part of his nature. I am sure that he will accept that I am aware of that. I am aware of the Committee proceedings, and I took the opportunity to point out the excellence of the Committee. Of course, if the whole of the art world were loaned to geniuses such as the lion. Member and the other members of the Committee, none of us would have a moment's uneasiness. The trouble is that people outside the Committee do not always behave with the wisdom of the hon. Member.

Mr. Faulds: I am happy to accept that. We Scots have a particularity in wanting to be specific and detailed and


have precise answers to the questions that we raise. Therefore, I back the right hon. Gentleman very strongly on the matters that he raised and I hope that the Minister will answer him. I am delighted that he has joined us in the debate this afternoon.
I had intended to make somewhat adverse comments on new clauses 2, 7 and 8, but I understand that those are likely to be withdrawn. I hope that they will be. We rehearsed the arguments in some detail in Committee, so I will not pursue them in the House this afternoon. I will merely point out that I think that by amendment No. 50 the Government have acted most handsomely and responsibly, by putting paid to the need to debate the new clauses.
It has always seemed to me that the in situ question, about which so much interest in reaching a sensible solution has been expressed, should figure in some way in clause 9, which deals with the disposal of works of art in satisfaction of tax. The reason for referring to the in situ question explicitly in that clause is that the concept is a new one, in the sense that it has hitherto enjoyed no statutory status.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster fully acknowledged the desirability of dealing effectively with this important question, and he has achieved this in an exemplary way. I am happy to use the following words in reference to the right hon. Gentleman. The warmest congratulations are due to him for having come up with a form of words which takes proper account of the views of both sides of the House and which maintains a sensible balance between them. Only fanatical extremists would question the wisdom of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's solution.
Now that indemnities can be made available for loans of selective works of art back to their original locations, the in situ question seems well on the way to a practical solution. What has been achieved in this respect in the Bill will turn out—I have no doubt of this—to be of lasting benefit to the public.
Having paid that encomium to the wisdom of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his hon. Friend the Minister, I end by asking the right hon.

Gentleman, by way of postscript, whether he can now give the House some indication of the sources of expert advice to which Ministers propose to turn in this connection.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I am glad that we are able to continue this debate in such a constructive way. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) for his kind words. I also welcome him to what so far has been an all-Scottish debate. My thanks are due also to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for his kind words about the amendment that we have tabled, which I hope meets many of the points that were raised by hon. Members.
It is right—and this is the value of these clauses—that we should recognise the association of a picture, a piece of furniture or a great family heirloom with its own home, where it has been since it was painted, constructed or brought back to from some distant battlefield, and which is therefore the hallowed pride of a family who may have looked after it for generations. That is why, in Committee, we accepted that certain objects of great eminence should, if possible, be seen in the historic homes where they have remained for generations. I hope that this policy will be developed over the years once the Bill has become an Act.
I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I know that for many years he has had a keen interest in the arts and the heritage. I am happy that he wished to join us in our debate today. However, he should look carefully at clause 16, which deals with indemnities, because this has changed dramatically since Second Reading. It is now possible for the type of object that we are discussing to be loaned for the purposes of exhibition where reasonable public access is available under indemnification proposals, which covers insurance. What we must look at carefully is the importance of the object to the exhibition, and security. In all probability we must rule out churches because of the great difficulties with security in churches which are open for worship throughout the day and in the evening.

Mr. Cormack: Some cathedrals have treasuries and museums attached to them


which are very secure. I have been asked whether they will be eligible, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will confirm that they will be.

Mr. Monro: I should not like to give any firm answer off the top of my head. Each treasury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West calls them, will have to be looked at carefully. I should not like to give a firm assurance at present, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about it as soon as possible.
I think that I owe a reply to the amendment of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but the important thing that I wish to do shortly is to speak to amendment No. 50 and move it at the appropriate moment. As the hon. Member for West Lothian knows, we had a long discussion about leaving in situ objects that had been accepted in lieu of tax. As I said in Committee, it is the Government's policy to encourage this. We have tabled an amendment specifically to deal with disposal under clause 9.
It is unnecessary to amend clause 12 because, as I told the Committee, when the Bill becomes law paragraph 17 (4) of schedule 4 to the Finance Act 1975 already empowers the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for the Environment to have regard to leaving objects in situ. We intend to discuss this fully with the expert advisers to ensure that there is no doubt about the nature of the test that we wish to see applied.
I now turn to the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for West Lothian, who was constructive and helpful throughout our Committee proceedings. Our view is that it is unacceptable, because, in effect, it drops the pre-eminence test for certain objects. We accept that some objects can be regarded as pre-eminent only in a particular setting, but in that setting they are of pre-eminent quality. That is catered for in the Bill and in existing law.
However, we do not think that it would be right to accept any object, because of its association with a particular building, ad hoc, case by case, at the discretion of Ministers, where the house itself was not offered in lieu of tax. That

would devalue the currency of the quality test, which is something that we must bear in mind. It is difficult enough for the expert advisers to operate to a consistent standard, and to widen the scope of the test in those cases where the object would remain associated with a building which would remain in private hands seems both unworkable in practice and objectionable in principle. As I think hon. Members have generously accepted, Government amendment No. 50 covers the points that we discussed in Committee, and I hope that it will be accepted by the House.
Although the Treasury has the formal responsibility for allocating objects accepted in lieu of tax, it has already de facto delegated this to the Ministers with departmental responsibility for the arts and the environment. In practice, what Ministers do is to consult the appropriate expert body—usually the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts or the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. These bodies take into account a wide range of issues on conservation, security, public access, opportunity for study, appropriate context, and so on.
Until quite recently the Treasury took the view that it was wrong in principle for someone who had offered property in lieu of tax to be allowed to retain the benefit of it in his own house, unless the house was also offered in lieu of tax. But this is no longer the situation, and there are several cases now under consideration where items accepted in lieu of tax may be left in situ in a privately owned building.
Thus, there really is no need to amend the law to provide for this, and, in strictness, if we mentioned one factor which should be taken into account in deciding on the disposal of property we ought to mention them all. However, our debates have shown that the question of leaving items in situ is one to which hon. Members on both sides of the House give special importance, and in those circumstances we consider that it would be right to provide a provision requiring Ministers to consider the in situ point in appropriate cases.
I believe that amendment No. 50, which I shall move when we come to clause 9, fulfils all hopes and aspirations of hon. Members who served on the Committee and, I hope, of hon. Members


who are present today. If the hon. Member for West Lothian withdraws the new clause, I am sure that he will find that the issues that it raises are adequately covered in amendment No. 50.

Mr. Dalyell: The Government have made a serious attempt to meet all the points that have been raised, and I thank the Minister for his reply. I have simply one request, which is that he should look carefully at what said about objects being restored to a certain place. If the Government think that my argument is fairly convincing—incidentally, I think it is—perhaps they will consider introducing a Lords amendment at the appropriate time. May we have the promise that such an amendment will be seriously considered?

Mr. Monro: I note the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall look carefully at what he has said. If the object is of pre-eminent importance, or if it could be so in situ in the context of its old historical home, I should have thought that it would be possible for it to be loaned under indemnity from whichever museum or gallery in which it was residing, accepting, of course, that the historical house has some form of access for the general public. I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman has said and let him know whether there are further developments.

Mr. Dalyell: That is good enough, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.

New Clause 3

EXEMPTION FROM STAMP DUTY ON FUND-FINANCED TRANSACTIONS

'(1) No stamp duty shall be payable on a conveyance or transfer of property made to the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund or on a conveyance or transfer to any body or institution where a grant or loan has been made to the body or instiution with respect to their acquisition of the property so conveyed or transferred.

(2) References in this section to conveyances or transfers include references to all occasions on which stamp duty would be chargeable but for the effects of this section.'.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speake: r: With this we may take the following:

New clause 4—Exemption from capital transfer tax on gifts to the fund.

New clause 5—Exemption of tile Fund from all taxes and rates as a memorial.

New clause 9—Acceptance of property in satisfaction of income tax in certain circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Both an amendment and a double-banking new clause were put forward during Committee and debated, and the discussion can be found in columns 210 to 216 of the Committee proceedings. The wording was defective, but the Minister correctly understood one aim, which was to exempt the recipient of grants and loans from the stamp duty that would otherwise be chargeable on conveyances and transfers of real property made with the aid of grants or loans from the fund. The Minister made it clear in Committee that relief from stamp duty is a matter for Treasury Ministers. It was heartening to hear what he said, and perhaps one can directly adduce from what he said that exemption will be forthcoming in the next Finance Bill. I wonder whether I intercept a nod and a wink from the Minister of State, Treasury. The hon. and learned Gentleman remains very silent and perhaps does not want to confirm that. Ah, good, I notice that he has nodded.
The Minister also referred to the position of the trustees themselves, which led to a discussion on their future status not as a charity but as a body receiving the same reliefs as a charity, which brings us back to one of our old topics. The debate brought to light the extraordinary situation that will prevail if the trustees make an acquisition of real property. On that, they will pay 1 percent. stamp duty, assuming that they are granted status akin to that of a charity. They will rapidly part with that property and the recipients will also pay stamp duty, because, as the Minister made clear, even those in receipt of gifts pay stamp duty. Therefore, stamp duty will be payable twice, and it may total at least 2 per cent., if not 3 per cent., depending on the status of the recipient body.
The first purpose of tabling the new clauses is to draw attention to the fact that, in spite of giving the trustees some relief, and in spite of the relief that recipient bodies may already have, at least 2 per cent. stamp duty may be paid in circumstances in which the trustees themselves make an acquisition and transfer it to a recipient.
The second purpose is to draw attention to the need to extend the exemption asked for to those transfers and other transactions that also pay stamp duty, such as leases. Here it seems that the words in clause 11 give exemption to all such transactions in respect of property accepted in lieu of tax. It is to be hoped that the exemption for the activities of trustees will extend just as widely, and I put that in question form.
It is ridiculous to vote extra money to Ministers who must then pay it to the trustees—incidentally, going through the barrier of public expenditure in the process—merely to provide the trustees with cash to pay back the money in the form of stamp duty. Will Treasury Ministers please bear that in mind and come to the sensible conclusion that total exemption should be given to the trustees from paying stamp duty, whatever they may do about recipient bodies?
With regard to recipient bodies, the Minister pointed to the anomaly that may be created when stamp duty exemption is given on purchases assisted by grants or loans from the fund, in contrast to the situation when gifts are made to the same recipient bodies from outside, with stamp duties paid thereon. The best way of dealing with that anomaly would be totally to exempt not only the same by private treaty—be it assisted from the fund or otherwise—but also gifts made to bodies that are listed in paragraph 12 of schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975. Stamp duty may only be 2 per cent.—1 per cent. in relation to charities—but surely it is rather petty to charge it on gifts for national purposes and on purchases made by august bodies.
In that context, it is appropriate to look at the position of the various bodies that are listed in that paragraph of schedule 6. The position is not quite clear, but it seems that only the National Trust, the National Trust of Scotland and, strangely, the Department of the Environ-

ment, including transport, escape paying stamp duty at the present time—be it at 2 per cent. or 1per cent. if the body is a charity. Even so, the exclusion of the two national trusts is significant. It must point the way towards total exemption being given to the fund as a body of comparable standing, at the very least. At this stage I should like to say to the Minister of State what a pity it is that we have not yet debated the Goodman report on charities. There are basic issues that should be discussed which are outside the immediate context of the heritage.
New clause 4 also stands in my name. The subject of exemption from capital transfer tax of gifts to the fund was raised several times, both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage. One aspect has not been debated and gives rise to the probing new clause—that is, the inclusion of the name of the fund in the paragraph 12 list in schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975. It carries with it the right to make private treaty purchases involving the inducement to the vendor of the so-called "douceur". That right is essential for the proper functioning of the fund. Without it, it will have difficulty in making acquisitions and may well have to pay more than would otherwise be the case.
Apart from that aspect, it has to be said that the fund is not large enough. Clearly, it needs more capital and income. All that can be done to encourage the making of gifts to the fund should be carried out. That point was emphasised particularly by George Russell, the lawyer to the National Trust of Scotland. Donors are only human. To give money in the knowledge that they or their executors will have to pay CTT and any capital gains tax arising from the disposal that is inherent in the gift would be most damaging. It is urgent to put the fund into the paragraph 12 list in schedule 6.
No firm undertaking has yet been given that the fund will be put into the list in the next Finance Bill. However, I know better than to ask the Minister of State to give clear undertakings about the nature of the Finance Bill before the Budget. Nevertheless, he may be in an expansive mood and may tell us something about that. Now that Treasury Ministers are permitted to speak, it seems appropriate to call for a direct and firm


undertaking, although I should understand if that undertaking were vague.
New clause 5 is grouped with my new clauses. It has my entire support. As hon. Members may know, I put up the amendment in Committee which may have sparked off the new clause, at least in relation to the reference to the recognition of the establishment of the fund as a memorial fund. I am glad to see that the pitfall of reference to Britain, as was the case with my amendment at Committee stage, has been avoided by using the words "United Kingdom". I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friends, not least my hon. Friend on the Front Bench from Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney).
Whatever their secret thoughts may have been, I hope that Treasury Ministers will take the sentiments in the new clause about the fullest possible tax exemption to heart. I hope that they will come up with the necessary clauses in the Finance Bill without fail. New clause 9 is also of considerable interest and should be another guiding light for Treasury Ministers. The restriction to CTT and coincident capital gains tax, and now interest thereon, plus estate duty, is rather too restrictive. Income tax on the winding up of an estate by executors is just as destructive as the other taxes that refer to heritage properties. It does not matter which tax causes dispersal; it is the dispersal itself that matters. Here, dispersal should be taken in the wider sense of export, which could well be triggered by opposed to that prevented by acceptance in satisfaction of income tax on winding up.
This is all a bit of a mouthful. However, I know that the Minister of State is used to dealing with mouthfuls, not least from me. I am sure that he will reply in some detail.

Mr. Cormack: As new clause 5 touches on some similar points and stands in my name and that of two of my hon. Friends, I feel bound to say something, although little. There is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said. There is no point in my repeating it. I believe that there is a case for consideration.
I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is taking part in the debate. We were all

devastated when he was removed from the list of members of the Committee. A gloom fell over our deliberations on the first day following his absence, from which we never adequately recovered. Now he has a chance to tell us the exact position of the Government. I shall not delay him for a moment from doing so.

Mr. Faulds: I should just like to put in a brief word. At this stage, in connection with new clause 9, is it not appropriate for the Minister or his colleague to comment on how the arguments would affect the taxation problems of the Seilern and Wernher collections? That is particularly so because these problems are now matters of considerable public knowledge.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I rise to intervene with a certain diffidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has pointed out, I did not take part in the debate in Committee.

Mr. Dalyell: We missed the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Rees: I am flattered. I took particular note of the kind remarks that were made. I cannot believe that my absence detracted from the quality of debate, judging from the Hansard report, which, of course, I read assiduously. I felt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—dare I say it in his presence—dealt with the points far more adequately than I could possibly have done. Anything that I can contribute on this occasion is only a gloss on the points that he made.

Mr. Dalyell: Is that an invitation to send for the Under-Secretary during the Finance Bill when we have differences of opinion?

Mr. Rees: That is a matter of discretion for the hon. Gentleman. I notice that he said in one of his interventions that it was not his normal habit to send for Law Officers but that when he sent for them they came. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is an honorary Law Officer henceforth on these matters. Perhaps that is not a status that he will accept with relish.
I address myself to the central theme of the four new clauses—the tax status of the fund. Of course, it is the fund with which we are concerned rather than


the trustees, because it is to be given corporate status. I shall give an undertaking to the House which I hope will allay many doubts and shorten the debate. It is our firm intention to introduce provisions in the next Finance Bill which will, for tax purposes, give the fund no less than the advantages of those who enjoy charitable status.
I say advisedly that it will be no less than that status, because, in one aspect of my response to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), it would be our intention to give them slightly more than that status. In other words, we believe, with him—indeed,it was the almost unanimous sentiment of the Committee—that it should be added to the list in paragraph 12 of schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 for the purposes of capital transfer tax. In other words, there will be total exemption for CTT purposes without limit. Of course, the House will appreciate that there are certain limits on normal disposals in favour of charities.

Mr. Cormack: That is spendid news. I am sure that we are all delighted. However, will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Finance Act will make the provisions apply retrospectively—in other words, that they will apply from 1 April so long as the fund comes into being on that day?

Mr. Rees: I have addressed my mind to that point. I suspect that we are talking about a gap of only five or six days. I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that the fund will come into operation on 1 April. Of course, the financial year starts on 6 April.

Mr. Cormack: Things can happen.

Mr. Rees: Anything can happen. I shall certainly take the point away with me to consider, but it would not be right to enmesh myself in points of such detail now. I hope that the House will bear in mind that we are probably talking about a gap of five days.
It would not be appropriate to give the fund or the trustees charitable status as such, because that would involve a web of other obligations outside the fiscal field. I resist the temptation to

debate the merits or demerits of the Goodman report with the hon. Member for West Lothian. If I did so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would no doubt rule me out of order. I notice a frown clouding the normally cheerful visage of the hon. Member for West Lothian. We propose that for fiscal purposes the fund should have no less than the advantages enjoyed by those with charitable status. However, there is a range of other obligations and liabilities, and if it were to receive charitable status it would become subjected to the attentions and supervision of the Charity Commissioners. That was not a matter for debate in Committee. I do not think that it is a matter for debate in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not look the gift horse that I have trotted into the Chamber—if I may describe it that way—in the mouth. I hope that he will realise, on reflection, that it is as good as it appeared to be a few minutes ago.
New clause 3 deals with the fund and any bodies aided by the fund. I have certain reservations about such an extension. Many, but not all, of the bodies to which the fund might direct transfers are charities, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. That would be widening unduly the ambit of the relief that I propose. There might be undesirable pressures on the trustees of the fund to make grants to various bodies to enable them to claim the exemption. I shall consider that, but I think that it would be tidier, cleaner and more appropriate if we concentrated on the fund itself.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian in regard to subsection (2) of new clause 3. I suspect, though, that there are certain obscurities. I am not certain whether it was drafted by his deft hand or by others. I understand that he wishes to cover leases, but I am not persuaded that leases will figure largely in the kind of transactions with which the fund is likely to be involved. Perhaps I am taking too narrow a view of the question and there might be situations where people wish to enter into such transactions and the fund may wish to grant long leases. That point can be considered when we draft the relief proposal in the next Finance Bill, but I suspect at the moment that new clause 3 is a little wide.
I hope that I have dealt with new clause 4 to the satisfaction of the House. I hope that it is amply covered by the assurance I have given for CGT purposes. The fund would be in the same position as other bodies listed in paragraph 12 of schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975.
I turn now to new clause 5. Dare I say to my hon. Friends in whose name it stands that I feel that total exemption from all taxes is a little too wide? Curious situations could arise. Trustees may even be exempted from Customs duties. I cannot believe that that is in the mind of my hon. Friends. I hope that they will accept that the point will be adequately covered by the assurance that I have given.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that this is a probing clause. We hoped to bring out precisely the points that he has made.

Mr. Rees: I thank my hon. Friend, and I shall not detain the House further on that point.
I turn now to new clause 9, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price). He is seeking—the point was also deployed by the hon. Member for West Lothian—to extend the acceptance of property in lieu of income tax. That is a substantial extension, and the clause is a little obscure. The acceptance of property in lieu of income tax is not simply limited to the income tax of the deceased, or even his estate. I am not certain why tax arising after death should be so exempt on the residue of the estate.

Mr. Faulds: It should be so exempt. If it is not, in the case of the Simon collection some paintings may have to be sold to pay off outstanding tax debts and the collection will be thereby diminished.

Mr. Rees: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me ungracious if I say that it is a little inappropriate to debate the details of two particular cases. If he would like to write to me on that matter, I shall answer him in detail.

Mr. Faulds: I am sorry to have to mention these particular cases, but they are of public knowledge. I am not raising matters improperly. The point is whether we should refer to specific cases.

Mr. Rees: My point is that it would be inappropriate for any hon. Member at this Dispatch Box to debate the facts of a particular case unless he is encouraged to do so by those directly affected. I am not privileged to have access to the files of any one taxpayer unless the taxpayer or his representative invites me to look at them. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; and, as I said, we shall certainly examine the general principle involved.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a general point that it takes so long to settle estates? I am not accusing lawyers of having a Dickensian circumlocution on this matter. I know exactly what happens, and it is precisely for that reason that I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give consideration to the length of time that it takes in practice, as opposed to in theory, to settle such matters.

Mr. Rees: We are deeply conscious of that. The hon. Gentleman in one way and I in another way have certain connections with the law. We are as conscious as any hon. Member of the problem. There are cases where negotiations with the capital taxes office have played a part, but I do not think that general delays in matters should weigh with us too much when we are devising a system of relief from taxes in this particular area.

New clause 9 refers to
income tax outstanding at or arising after death
without any limitation. It could happen that if the residuary estate comprised a work of significant value, the income of the residuary estate, which had no relationship with the particular work of art, could be prayed in aid in relation to it. Many matters would need to be tied up. I do not think that any hon. Member is pressing the Government to accept new clause 9 in its present form, but we shall take on board the general point made. It is not comprised within the undertaking that I have given.

Mr. Dalyell: That is good enough for me.

Mr. Faulds: It is not quite good enough for me. I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given


those undertakings, but he must examine the matter further. If he does not, there will be problems within a matter of months of the setting up of the fund.

Mr. Rees: I have made careful notes of the hon. Gentleman's points. In so far as it is proper for me to do so, I shall certainly look at the two cases mentioned. As I said, it may no the proper, unless I am invited to do so. I accept the general points made by the hon. Members for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and for West Lothian, but, as I said, at this stage I am not in a position to give any undertaking. I shall bear in mind the dire warnings that have been conveyed. We are all aiming at the same objective, and we must decide how widely we could and would extend this form of relief.
I hope, however, that the general undertaking that I have given will satisfy the House. I also hope, notwithstanding my absence from the debates in Committee, that hon. Members will accept my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered and not press the new clauses to a Division.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, and I understand the powerful point about the web of obligations. I shall seek to withdraw the new clause in the knowledge that, doubtless, some of these issues will be discussed in the sweaty and sultry atmosphere of Committee Room 10 in late June or early July—that is, if my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) puts me on the Finance Bill Committee.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 18 at end insert:
'(1A) The initial sum paid into the Fund in the financial year in which it is appointed that section 1(1) above shall come into force shall not be less than the value of the investments in and other assets of the National Land Fund on 1st April 1980 is predicted at the time when that sum is determined by the Ministers.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 39, in clause 18, page 10, line 36, after 'modify', insert 'a)'.

No. 40, in page 10, line 38, at end insert:
'and
(b) section 2(1A) above such that the day appointed by the order shall be substituted therein for 1st April 1980'.

Mr. Dalyell: The first amendment is the main one. The other two are consequential and simply allow for any difficulty that may arise if part I of the Bill is not brought into force on 1 April 1980.
The first amendment requires that a sum equal to that in the National Land Fund is transferred to the new fund, not merely £12 million—plus, as envisaged by Ministers. That implies that Ministers will have to find the money for the financing of acceptances in lieu from a higher Vote, presumably at the cost of an additional £3 million.
One purpose in tabling the amendment is to allow discussion of the expenses that will be incurred by the trustees in setting up shop—possibly purchasing accommodation, if not leasing it, unless Government property is to be made available, and buying furniture, equipment and so on, unless that also is to be loaned free of charge.
Another purpose is to allow debate of the difficulties in which the trustees will find themselves over the purchase of investments that will not be earning interest but which will rather, at some time in the future, provide them with income in the form of dividends. If the trustees have to buy investments too close to the dividend date to obtain such income, they will have to pay the more for them. That will whittle away, a little at any rate, of their capital.
All that is quite apart from consideration of whether the Government should make a more handsome gesture and pay the full sum in the Land Fund to the trustees without reducing it by £3 million to cover the cost of acceptances in lieu in the first year.
It is not one of the major amendments but it would be generous if the Government could accept it.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate the objective of the amendment, which is to try to


obtain a further £3½ million from the Government. I have one little point that might please the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
Many people would be delighted if we could give the additional sum, but, regrettably, we cannot unless we renege on our commitment to continue the arrangement whereby executors can offer works of art in lieu. It would also have to be at the expense of other desirable, necessary and important expenditure programmes. That is financial reality, which perhaps in his commendable enthusiasm on behalf of the Heritage Fund trustees the hon. Gentleman overlooked.
We said that an amount equivalent to the balance in the National Land Fund on 31 March 1980 will be provided for the trustees and acceptances in lieu in 1980–81. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, that is the £12 million in round figures to the trustees and £3½ million kept separate for in lieu. We made it clear from the outset that that available sum would have to cover both kinds of expenditure.
We estimate that £15·5 million will be in the Land Fund at the end of this financial year, and that is why we have taken that figure for discussion throughout the Bill. If the balance is less than £15·5 million, we shall honour our commitment. If it is significantly more, our intention is to make the excess available to the trustees. If the market goes up, we are batting on a good wicket.

The trustees' share will be about £12 million, which is by no means a derisory sum. It will be supplemented by annual grants and the interest earned on the original sum will be available for the trustees.

It has been suggested that the initial cost of the fund will be disproportionately high in relation to the ongoing costs once it is firmly established and that the grant should be supplemented to take account of that and prevent too rapid depletion of the fund's resources. The cost of setting up the fund's administrative machinery will be met in the current year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Department and the Department of the Environment.

In consultation with the chairman-designate of the trustees, when he is appointed, we shall acquire suitable office accommodation and equipment and take steps to engage the nucleus of the administrative staff, so that the fund can be launched as a going concern on 1 April. The costs involved, as I said, will be met from my right hon. Friend's Department and the Department of the Environment. The trustees will assume responsibility for the day-to-day running costs from 1 April, and they will be taking on an office that is in being.

Mr. Cormack: Has it yet been decided where the trust will be housed?

Mr. Monro: No. We would want to involve the chairman-designate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with his involvement with the PSA and others, will have a number of suitable offices available in London, which is where I believe that we should all like the offices to be based.
The hon. Gentleman indicated that he believed that it would be some time before substantial income results from investments, but that is not strictly so. It is possible to invest such a substantial sum so that it bears interest quickly. There will be income flowing into the fund in its early days. In practical terms, it will be some weeks or months before there is any major purchase or assistance. We know how long it takes to get lawyers and trustees of estates working quickly towards a conclusion, so there will be that initial period during which income can be earned.
We have been as generous as we possibly can. If the Land Fund is above £15·5 million, that will be to the advantage of the trustees and in lieu.

Mr. Faulds: I do not believe that the Committee understood why the Minister felt it necessary to differentiate in the grant between the first year and later years. I do not believe that it was ever explained. I accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments that there will be investment coming in and immediate decisions will not be taken for two or three months. However, if a crisis should arise in that first year, and the trustees have to eat into capital—which may well occur—will the Government consider putting forward an


emergency grant in those unhappy circumstances?

Mr. Monro: The greater the emergency, the longer it will take to resolve. A crisis such as Mentmore would not be resolved in a matter of weeks. It would take much longer. I do not make any commitment, but if a situation arose that would dramatically deplete the amount of money available to the Heritage Fund trustees, they should turn to the Government for advice. The sale of Mentmore would have removed half of the fund in one purchase. Now that hon. Members have taken a new look at the Heritage Fund, we shall not operate in that way. We are determined to do better than in the past.
Mentmore and other large estates would have to be discussed with the Government. However, we must hope that such sales will be infrequent as they destroy the objectives of the Bill, namely, to keep country houses, estates and places of historical interest as they are. We do not wish them to be broken up and dispersed because of an unfortunate death or for financial reasons. If a crisis arose, the Government would stand by the Heritage Fund. How far the Government can go will be determined by economic circumstances.
The hon. Member for West Lothian was right to raise that question and it has given me an opportunity to speak about the money available. It has also given me an opportunity to show that the Government are ready to take care of the expense of setting up the Heritage Fund Trust and its staff. If the National Land Fund is above £15·5 million on 1 April, any surplus will be to the benefit of the trustees. If the National Land Fund is not at that level, the Government will stand by their promise to ensure that that sum is available.
We have played our part. I hope that with these assurances the hon. Gentleman will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: In a previous incarnation, as a senior Opposition Whip, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you had to put up with me for many hours during the Scotland Bill. I often told my own Front Bench that they had no right to go ahead with the Royal high school until the Scotland Bill had

been signed, sealed and delivered. In the event, they did not take that advice. That was to the disadvantage of the taxpayer. However, I shall not complain too much as a good building has been restored although its use has not yet been determined.
I am the last out of 630 Members of Parliament to lecture a Government on the need to act quickly and to think about headquarters. I shall not complain that the Government are not forthcoming about where the headquarters of the trust will be. I merely ask that those headquarters are not put on the fifteenth floor of a modern office block. This is an opportunity to set an example. We should take part in a rescue operation and rescue a building of distinction. That building will probably have to be in London.

Mr. Cormack: I merely wish to suggest the Royal high school in Edinburgh. However, I do not do so seriously.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps we could shift the Royal high school stone by stone to within the proximity of London airport. Does the building have to be in central London, or is there an argument for putting it within reach of Gatwick or of Heathrow? As trustees will come from all over Britain, there are advantages in having a prestige building near to an airport rather than in the centre of the city. I understand that this will depend on the buildings that are available. I simply ask that that point should be considered. Perhaps some building could be saved that would make an appropriate headquarters for the trust.

Mr. Monro: I hope that all hon. Members will realise that the headquarters should be modest. There are a limited number of trustees and there will be—we hope—a small office staff. We therefore do not seek anything large or expensive. I suffer on the fifteenth floor of a modern tower block and I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. It would be an inappropriate place for the Heritage Fund trustees. I can think of some most attractive offices such as those which the Crown Estate Commissioners have in Carlton House Terrace, where trustees would feel at home. Their minds would be able to concentrate on their work in such appropriate surroundings.

Mr. Cormack: The National Portrait gallery is vacating Carlton House Terrace very shortly. Accommodation will be available that is highly attractive.

Mr. Morro: We shall bear that in mind. However, during the Committee stage it was said that no one could find Carlton House Terrace and that that was why no one went there. Perhaps that is a different point. We hope that the trustees will be given surroundings appropriate to their work. However, those surroundings should be of modest proportions. We want to spend money not on offices but on our heritage.

Mr. Dalyell: I remind the Minister that there is a block of Government-owned property—owned, I think, by the Foreign Office—in the area adjacent to the Foreign Press Association. There are some beautiful rooms and houses that might be appropriate. With that thought, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

GRANTS AND LOANS FROM THE FUND

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'or building' and insert', building or structure'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take the following amendments:

No. 4, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'land or object' and insert 'property'.

Government amendment No. 7.

No. 8, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'a building' and insert 'any property'.

No. 9, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'land or an object' and insert 'any property'.

Government amendment No. 10.

Mr. Monro: There was doubt among Committee members about the definition of "building" and whether it covered everything that we wished. The amendment changes "building" and inserts "building or structure". That may seem a humble amendment, but I hope that it will meet with the agreement of Committee members. Every point that was raised about the definition of "building" has now been adequately covered. Iron

bridges were mentioned as examples of structures that might not have been covered by "building", although we thought that they would be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) raised several points relating to amendment No. 5. I shall deal with that later, although it concerns car parks and we had thought that car parks might have been excluded. Government amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 10 clarify that point.

Mr. Dalyell: I have tabled amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 9. I am glad that the Government have responded by tabling amendment No. 2. The Minister called it a humble amendment, but I am all in favour of humble amendments as long as they are effective. This amendment is effective. It clears up any doubts about structures on land. Although in Committee the Minister did not refer to land—including trees and growing things—I understand that the definition in the Interpretation Act goes that far. I have therefore withdrawn an amendment that was tabled last Thursday. I hope that that will satisfy the Council for the Preservation of Rural England as it has written to several hon. Members.
Amendment No. 4 refers to clause 3(1)(d). I do not understand why there has to be a restriction on "land or object". Surely, anything that should be accepted by reason of its association with property—covered by paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)—should be eligible. Hence my amendment to substitute "property" and so avoid the exclusion of buildings and structures.
Indeed, why should association be restricted to being with an eligible building, or even with
land or a building or structure
as it will be under Government amendment No. 7? This, as distinct from eligible property of any type, falls within subsection (1)(a) as my amendment No. 8 proposes. Certainly, land should be included here, and I am glad that the Government have included it.

6 pm

My amendment No. 9 amends the phrase in brackets in clause 3(2). This is consequential on the first amendment. Clearly there has been some advance in the Government amendments, but none;


the less I cannot quite see why these cannot be made a good deal simpler by referring to "property" in a wider sense. Do we need to inhibit the activities of the trustees with such narrow and possibly confusing definitions? Has the Minister grasped this point? Would he like me to repeat it?

Mr. Monro: Mr. Monro indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: My first amendment, No, 4, is to paragraph (d) in clause 3(1). It is not at all clear why there should be a restriction to "land or object" in the first line of the paragraph. Surely, anything that should be excepted by reason of its association with property covered by paragraph (a), (b) or (c) should be eligible. Hence my amendment to substitute "property" and so avoid the exclusion of buildings and structures. Indeed, why should association be restricted to being with an eligible building or even with
land or a building or structure?
This will be the case under Government amendment No. 7. This is distinct from the eligible property of any kind that falls within paragraph (a), as my amendment No. 8 proposes. Perhaps the Minister would like some comment from his advisers. That is understandable.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has asked me some detailed questions which I may not be able to answer completely. As I said earlier, we tabled our amendments to cover the word "structure" after "land or building" because we felt that it made the context that much clearer. It clarified the position of monuments, piers and chimneys, and so on, which might have been doubtful had we stuck to the terminology of "building".
On the meaning of the word "land", the definition that I gave the Committee was inclusive. It did not cover everything that the word denotes in law. The legal maxim is that whatever is attached to the land is land. All the King's College scholars who were on the Committee knew of "quid quid adherat soli solum est", whatever that stands for. Therefore, any trees, plants or any kind of object attached to the land are all covered by the term "land". There is no doubt that everything that we have wished to include in the Bill is now satis-

factorily covered by the definition, particularly after the Government amendments are accepted.

Mr. Faulds: I think that the Minister has met very well the arguments made in Committee about the need to add the word "structure". His explanations about the addition of the word "land" are perfectly acceptable. I am delighted that the Government have so wisely moved in the spirit of the Committee.

Mr. Monro: I thank the hon. Member. The hon. Member for West Lothian raised a point about the word "property". The feeling is that it would be more restrictive to have that word than the wording that is in the Bill. On reflection, and when he has also had expert advice, I think that he will feel that our wording is the better.
I appreciate that I might not have given him a detailed answer on one particular point that he raised, but I shall do so as soon as possible. I hope that he will accept what I have said.

Mr. Dalyell: Am I to understand that the Government will bring forward an amendment in the House of Lords if their lawyers and advisers think that that is necessary? Am I right in thinking that, if this is at all necessary after legal advice has been sought, the Government will do something at the appropriate stage?

Mr. Monro: Yes, of course I shall give that assurance. If anything needs further explanation in the legal sense on the definition of "land", "structure" or "building", it will be done. It is the Government's wish that this legislation should become an Act of Parliament in the clearest possible terms. There is no point in approving a Bill that has a drafting flaw. I have no reason to think that it has, but I shall look at it carefully.

Mr. Cormack: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). The Government have met the points made in Committee and the Government amendment goes all the way. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given an assurance to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that should there be any second thoughts about the clarity of this matter, the Bill will be amended in another place. Therefore, I welcome


and endorse the Government amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 35, leave out from 'above' to 'by' in line 36 and insert
'the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of which is in their opinion desirable'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 35, after 'opinion', insert 'should be acquired, or'.

Mr. Monro: This is another clarification that was requested in Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), who was worried about land that would or would not be included in the pre-eminent status, such as land for a car park, which would be extremely valuable if the property were open to the public. This amendment makes the position abundantly clear.

Mr. Cormack: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), who much regrets not being able to attend today, I should make it clear that he is very grateful to the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: My amendment No. 6 was brought forward in order to highlight the problem raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). In Committee he posed the possibility that a piece of land just next door to outstanding land, but not itself outstanding, might be central to the enjoyment of the outstanding land and that its purchase should therefore be grant-aided.
Alternatively, it might be that that land was needed for access, car parking facilities or other visitors' facilities, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Hudson Davies). At present, clause 3(1)(d) stipulates that associated land must be
worthy of acquisition, maintenance or preservation by reason of its association with a building.
It is difficult to conceive of a patch of land which is to be covered up with tarmac and public lavatories as being worthy of acquisition, whereas obviously it should be acquired. The Minister was clearly interested in the debate in Committee which centred on the addition of

the words "structure or other thing thereon" and he undertook to look at the problems raised. It is a pleasure to see that the Government have taken the point and brought forward amendment No. 5, which does the same job. Clearly, that amendment is acceptable, and in those circumstances I shall not seek to press my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7 in page 2, line 37, leave out 'a building' and insert
'land or a building or structure'.

No. 10, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'building mentioned in that paragraph' and insert
'land, building or structure with which it is associated'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'securing' to end of line 6 and insert:
'improving, limiting or preventing public access to, or the public display of, the property for the public benefit such that reasonable public access is provided in the circumstances of the case'.
We touched on this matter in Committee. We are all concerned with public access, and obviously, where public funds are involved, it is important that public benefit should accrue. At the same time, it is recognised that there are occasions when too much public access can destroy the very gem we are seeking to preserve.
In Committee we referred particularly to nature reserves and the Government met us with an amendment of their own. One seeks to highlight the fact that reasonable public access need not always mean a great degree of public access. I am thinking in particular of the smaller country house. A vast number of visitors, lured there as bees to a honey-pot, can destroy the very thing which the fund would have preserved. This is in the nature of a probing amendment, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give us his latest reflections. It is a matter that causes concern to many people in the National Trust and elsewhere.

Mr. Dalyell: We have a double-barrelled problem here. There was some discussion in Committee of arguments put to us by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The society


was naturally concerned about sanctuaries. It may well be that access to a sanctuary—or more than limited access—is highly undesirable.
On the other hand, there is a problem with certain properties. Leeds Castle is an example. I understand that it is now given over to conferences following the gift of the widow of the last Conservative Member of Parliament for West Lothian, Lady Bailey, who has spent her life refurbishing Leeds Castle. Through the work of Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd, it has become a remarkable place.
I had the good fortune to be shown over the castle by Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd and his colleagues. There are rooms there in which it would be highly undesirable to have more than a certain number of visitors per year. This amendment is relevant to such a building as Leeds Castle. Possibly it does not have general relevance, but it has a specialised relevance and I look forward to hearing the views of the Government.

Mr. Monro: I share the views of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). There is total unanimity on this point. As one who has also been to Leeds Castle and who appreciates the immense amount of work done by Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd and his colleagues, I believe it is right for us to say that it would be wrong for queues of people to trail through those magnificent but small rooms. Such numbers of visitors would damage the delightful atmosphere at Leeds Castle, and to an extent some of the fittings, furniture and draperies might also be destroyed by large numbers of visitors.
We are lucky that Leeds Castle was provided for us by Lady Bailey and her trustees and that it is so admirably used for good causes. It is a part of our heritage which is highly commendable. There are circumstances where restriction of access is as important as the welcoming of visitors, but that restriction applies mainly to wildlife habitat rather than to historic buildings.
I am keen on birds and wildlife and I know how important quietness is during the nesting season. It would be wrong for large numbers of visitors—albeit with

the best of intentions—to walk through a bird sanctuary and do immense harm through ignorance. It is, therefore, right that the Bill should ensure that access must not be overdone.

I said in Committee that the Bill adequately covered the proposition that I now put forward. It gives the trustees, or whoever is in charge of property, total authority to exclude as well as to include. Naturally, inclusion will be more important to them. We must make certain that when substantial sums of Government money have been made available there will be a right for the public, within reason, to see the treasures and historic buildings that have been provided for under the provisions of the Bill.

There is nothing between us. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West tabled this probing amendment. It has given us a chance to ventilate this important issue, and I assure my hon. Friend that all is well as far as general and restrictive access is concerned under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased that he has made these points. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of Leeds Castle. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and I have been exercised about Baddesley Clinton, which we hope will soon become part of our national heritage. It is another perfect example of a small property that would be destroyed if vast numbers of people went round it. My hon. Friend has made it plain that these points have been taken by the Government and we are very grateful to him.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 29, leave out from 'institution' to 'a' in line 31 and insert—
'one of the principal purposes of which is the preservation for the public benefit of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments:

Government amendment No. 46.

No. 14 in page 3, line 43, leave out 'and'.

No. 15, in page 4, line 7, at end insert—
'(f) any body or institution approved by the Ministers under this paragraph as an eligible recipient with respect to a specfic case'.

Government amendments Nos. 16 and 47.

No. 25, in clause 9, page 6, line 28, leave out section 3(7)(a)(b) or (c)' and insert
'section 3(7)(a), (b), (c), or (f).

No. 26, in page 6, line 28, leave out '(a)'.

Government amendment No. 48.

No. 38, in clause 16, page 10, line 19, leave out from 'section' to first 'to' in line 21.

No. 41, in page 11, line 7, at end insert—
' "university" includes a university college and a college, school or ball of a university.'

Mr. Cormack: Here we return to a point that was touched on a number of times in Committee. It concerns an
institution which exists wholly or mainly for the purpose of preserving for the public benefit a collection of historic, artistic or scientific interest.
A number of us, including the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), were concerned about the restrictive nature of that clause. I look forward with interest to what my hon. Friend will say about the Government amendments. I would like to add to the example that I gave the Committee when I referred to such places as the Royal hospital at Chelsea with its fine collection of guns, cathedral treasuries and museums.
I received a letter from Miss Judith Scott, who for many years was the Secretary to the Council for the Care of Churches, which is now the Council for Places of Worship. I am concerned as a trustee of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, as she is, that cathedral treasuries and museums should be included. One could not argue that cathedrals exist wholly or mainly to preserve a collection. Yet at a number of our great cathedrals—one thinks of Lincoln, York and Durham—wonderful treasuries have been created with the help of splendid gifts from the Goldsmiths' Company. In those cathedrals one can

see collections of ecclesiastical plate, beautifully displayed and more than adequately protected, which has come from the whole diocese. The are often changing exhibitions. As a rule, parishes lend their chalices and patens and other pieces of plate for a period. It is very important, if the Bill is to be all embracing, that institutions such as the cathedral treasuries at Lincoln, York and Durham, or the musuems at York and Durham, should be able to benefit. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give a reassuring reply. If he has any doubt on this minor but important point, I hope that he will be able to promise that in another place the Government will think seriously about introducing an amendment so that institutions of this nature will be included.
The example of Christ Church was mentioned in Committee, and we had an assurance that the Christ Church library and collection would be included. But one cannot separate a cathedral treasury, museum, or perhaps even library, in the way that separation has been carried out at Christ Church.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be dragged into irrelevancies, but I must express concern about the proposals of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) on this point. If we include all that he wants, we should be in danger of creating a watering can effect while knowing that the sums available were finite. The expense that could be incurred at Lincoln alone—I have no recent knowledge of Durham—could be considerable. Some of us might argue that the major ecclesiastical work has to be financed elsewhere.

Mr. Cormack: I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has misunderstood me. If I was not clear, I apologise. I merely say that there could be occasions when the sort of institution that I have described might wish to acquire a valuable piece of church plate, and that that institution might be the right place in which it should repose. During the period of the Commonwealth and since, there have been occasions when churches and cathedrals have lost their valuables. I am suggesting that only where there is a treasury should the opportunity arise to restore some piece of plate to it, that that would be a


legitimate concern of the trustees and that it should be within their province so to do.

Mr. Dalyell: I gather from glancing at my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), who is the Whip, that he thinks that I may be embarking upon an esoteric argument and that that would not do the Bill any service.
Amendment No. 14 is a paving amendment leading to the main amendment, amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 25 is consequential.
By amendment No. 15 a new class of eligible recipients is inserted into the list of classes in clause 3(7). In Committee a similar amendment was tabled, but it was starred and not selected. Nevertheless, it was referred to in the debate on amendments to clause 9(2), though the Minister did not respond.
Clause 9(2) contains a reference back to some of the paragraphs in clause 3(7) and, accordingly, the various institutions and bodies listed in clause 3(7)(a), (b) and (c) are identified as institutions and bodies which can receive property accepted in satisfaction of tax under such conditions as may be laid down under clause 9(2).
So, if my main amendment is made—together with the consequential amendment—Ministers will be able to approve any body or institution they like not only as an eligible recipient in a specific case with respect to grant or loan from the trustees but as a recipient of property accepted in lieu of tax under the procedure in clause 9(2).
The Minister said—col. 202 of the Committee report—that there could be circumstances where an individual specifically requested the property accepted in lieu of tax to be given to the National Art-Collections Fund, and he pointed out that such a situation could be coped with under the power to direct disposal in any manner as either of the Ministers may direct, under clause 9(1). But it is submitted that it would be better to be able to make such directions under clause9(2).
Reverting to the situation of the trustees, there is no power equivalent to clause 9(1) to give grant or loan aid except to the bodies that fall within the classes set out in clause 3(7). Para-

doxically, the trustees can give away property that they have acquired, with the approval of Ministers, to whoever they think appropriate.
Here again, the National Art-Collections Fund might be involved. Who knows, it may have funds and wish to make a purchase by private treaty yet need to obtain a small grant or loan from the fund to complete the transaction, a grant which might be best made direct to ensure the application of conditions.
There may be other bodies which should be approved as eligible recipients that do not fall into the classes already set out in clause 3(7). Mention was made of the Friends of the National Libraries.
So it is submitted that there is a case for a catch-all paragraph in clause 3(7), in spite of the applications that such a clause might draw and the decisions, probably rejections, that might result. Here, flexibility should be the order of the day, and the Bill as it stands is a little inflexible. If no such catch-all paragraph is provided, time may have to be found for legislation in the future—and parliamentary time is always in short supply.
As to the other amendments in the group, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West has a good point in amendment No. 12. In the debate in Committee, the words "wholly or mainly" gave rise to quite a lot of discussion—and I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to table an amendment on the lines of amendment No. 12.
I would accept amendments Nos. 16, 38 and 41. Amendment No. 16 makes good sense.

Mr. Monro: This is a large series of amendments which basically seek to widen the category of museums and other institutions that can be covered by the Bill. In replying to the debate, and particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I have to say that I can go so far but no further, and that perhaps the catch-all amendment of which he speaks would broaden the provision rather too much. I welcome the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), particularly in relation to cathedral treasures. I assure him that


they are covered by clause 3(7)(a) as it stands. I am sure that that will be good news to him and to those whose case he has so eloquently advanced.
There are six Government amendments in the selection which I shall move at the appropriate time. These are all designed to clarify the point that national university and local authority libraries are eligible for assistance through the fund. I can also give an assurance that I gave in Committee, namely, that record and archive offices are within the scope of subsection (7)(a).

Mr. Faulds: When the Minister speaks of archives, does that include local Conservative Party or Labour Party records, local mining institute records and other records as unimportant in passing as those?

Mr. Monro: This has been a congenial debate. There is an immense difference between Conservative Party records and those that we see in The Sunday Times from distinguished members of the Labour Party.

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman must not be naughty. Those are not records but bits of chit-chat and gossip spread around to damage colleagues in the party. I am speaking of official records, responsibly kept by secretaries of local parties. The hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman has discovered how dangerous it is to provoke me.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister accept my assurance that we are not speaking of Mrs. Jenkins's dinner? We are speaking of items such as the Warnlockhead Lead Miners' Library, where the HBC gave a grant. It is a matter of some substance. It is highly desirable that such places should be preserved.

Mr. Monro: We must return to a level plane. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that distinguished library at Warnlockhead, which I know well and visit from time to time. The library is grateful for the support that it has received to continue its good work.
We must keep in mind that we are speaking of matters that are pre-eminent. We are not speaking of records that are

of little consequence, though it is often difficult to decide at an early stage whether such records will be valuable in 100 years. The work of the record and archives offices is within the scope of clause 3(7)(a).

Mr. Ernie Ross: I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier. We are discussing valuable records. Will the Minister take the opportunity to reassure the historians concerned with the decision to move the valuable records in Chancery Lane to Kew that that will not now take place?

Mr. Monro: That is rather outside the terms of the Bill. It is a matter for internal decision by those involved with the transfer of treasures. I should need to have more knowledge of the subject before I could reply. I do not know which Department is involved or the ownership of the papers. I shall find out and write to the hon. Gentleman. I could not give him any indication from the Dispatch Box on a matter about which I have no knowledge.
The hon. Member for West Lothian has tabled an important amendment, designed to add a residual catch-all category to the set of eligible recipients. It is an attractive amendment. It places considerable power in the hands of Ministers to rule that certain bodies and institutions which would not otherwise have been eligible shall be eligible. The cases which the hon. Gentleman has in mind are similar to those mentioned in Committee and are, inevitably, border-line cases. No doubt it will be administratively convenient to allow these to be covered by the trustees and for them to consider granting help.
My objection is twofold. First, in principle it is wrong to provide specific powers in the Bill for the trustees to assist the categories in clause 3(7) and then to enable Ministers to drive a coach and horses through the subsection by empowering them to approve any other body or institution, subject to the limitations of subsection 3(a). It gives Ministers too much discretion.
Secondly, it places Ministers in an awkward position. As I explained in Committee in relation to other amendments, it tends to water down subsection 1(a). Ministers, and the trustee, will be


bombarded with applications that are non-starters. The trustees will have to consult Ministers on whether certain applicants could be considered under the residual category. It will broaden the clause too much, will leave too much discretion on the whim of Ministers, and will not make life easier for the trustees.
I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West an assurance on his original amendment. I listened to his remarks with interest. In principle, I should have been happy to accept the amendment, but we believe that it would restrict rather than broaden the relevant passage in the Bill. With those remarks, especially with the assurance that I have given on cathedral treasures, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment and let the Government amendment proceed.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not often that we hear Ministers at the Dispatch Box saying that Ministers should not be allowed too much discretion. However, the Government are probably right. I am against ministerial discretion being used too widely. We are building up the decision-making process of the trustees. My instinct is to accept that in this instance the Government are probably right.

Mr. Cormack: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his assurance about cathedral treasures. Up and down the country, archivists will be reassured by his reiteration that archives, such as the William Salt Library, will fall within the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friend has given a considered and reasonable reply, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
'(aa) any library which is maintained—

(i) wholly or mainly out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of moneys appropriated by Measure; or
(ii) by a library authority;
or the main function of which is to serve the needs of teaching and research at a university in the United Kingdom;'.

No. 16, in page 4, line 11, after '(b)', insert 'or (c)'.

No. 47, in page 4, line 13, at end insert—
'(9) In subsection 7(aa)(ii) above "library authority" means a library authority within the meaning of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, a statutory library authority within the meaning of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1955 or an Education and Library Board within the meaning of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 4

OTHER EXPENDITURE OUT OF THE FUND

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No 17, in page 4, line 25, after 'section', insert—
'for more than six months'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 18, in clause 5, page 4, line 36, after 'gift', insert—
'for more than six months'.

Mr. Dalyell: Two amendments were tabled on these lines but were started and debated only on clause 5 stand part in Committee. Even that debate was brief. The main point of the amendments was not discussed, hence the re-tabling for debate on Report.
The amendments affect acquisitions and the acceptance of gifts under clauses 4 and 5 respectively. As the Bill stands, the trustees may not make acquisitions or accept gifts, other than money, without ministerial approval. In contrast, they can make 100 per cent. grants without obtaining approval.
Under the amendments the trustees would be able to make acquisitions and accept gifts as they may decide, provided, of course, that they disposed quickly of the property so acquired or received. All are agreed that only in exceptional circumstances, properly involving ministerial approval, should the trustees continue to hold such property for long periods.
The main point at issue is whether trustees are to be given discretion to act. There is much to be said for not tying them to Ministers' coat tails, and giving them the power to acquire, which they would not abuse. I conceded on the previous amendment on the issue of ministerial discretion, and I believe that that strengthens my case on these amendments.


The minor point is how long trustees should be allowed to hold property which they have acquired. Six months is stipulated in the amendments, but perhaps it should have been nine months or one year. Nine months would certainly seem to be a practical proposition.
I do not pretend that I shall press the amendments to a Division, but I feel strongly about them.

Mr. Monro: The effect of amendment No. 17 would be to allow the trustees to acquire and hold property for up to six months without their having to seek the approval of Ministers. As I explained in Committee, the trustees are essentially a body which will help others to acquire property. It is not their primary purpose to acquire property in their own right, even for a short period, and it would be wrong for them to be given the power to acquire property just to buy and sell or otherwise dispose of within a short period without reference to Ministers. They are not dealers or handlers of bridging loans, and they are certainly not running estate agencies or picture galleries. I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee that the trustees should have in mind and agree where property or objects are going before becoming involved with a purchase or other forms of financial support.
We believe that the power to hold property provided in clause 4 will be exercised sparingly, and it is important that Ministers keep complete control of it. It may be suggested that opportunities to purchase items arrive at short notice in the property market and the art world, but that does not justify the trustees acting in their own right in such cases. If they hear of such opportunities before other bodies, which is unlikely, they can still consult the appropriate categories of recipients of assistance to see whether they are interested in the items and need assistance.
To all intents and purposes, amendment No. 18 is on the same point. We believe that we should not encourage the trustees to hold property without knowing where it is ultimately to reside or in whose responsibility it will be held. Trustees should not have the right to hold property without reference to Ministers. The hon. Member obviously feels strongly about this matter. So do I, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not happy with that reply. May I ask the Minister some questions? He said that the trustees were not concerned with bridging loans. I understand that, but surely they have a warehouse function. The matters with which we are concerned often arise in crisis conditions. It is not a question of trustees dealing with bridging loans or the money markets.
It was slightly unfair for the Minister to give the impression that by tabling the amendments I thought that we were dealing with a bunch of people who would speculate on the money markets. That is not the nature of the trustees.

6.45 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman said that Ministers must have control. Surely we are concerned about day-to-day control. Does he mean that, in this respect, though not in many others, Ministers must have complete control?

The Minister also said that trustees were not justified in acting in their own right. Will he expand on that? I thought that the point was that we should trust the trustees to act in their own right in such matters. If I have got the wrong end of the stick, no doubt the Minister will tell me.

Mr. Monro: There is little between us on this matter, and perhaps less than the hon. Gentleman indicates. He underestimates the speed with which Governments can act when requested to do so in an emergency. If the trustees need urgent support, advice or decisions from either the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Secretary of State for the Environment, I have not the slightest doubt that they will be able to get them rapidly.
However, the basis of the amendments is to extend the period to six months. Despite the immense trust and responsibility that I know the trustees will have, we want to encourage them to pass on property at the speediest rate possible. We do not want them to hold property for a long period. That is not the purpose or the duty given to them in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman is asking for additional powers which the Government do not think are justified or necessary. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not sure that the Minister is right in saying that there is little between us on this issue. I think that there is something between us. I am not happy about what the Minister said about the trustees passing on property at "the speediest rate possible". When things are done at speed, they are not always done to the national advantage. The idea that trustees must be hustled and jostled into acting in that way is not wise. If a little more time is taken—and we know that time is often of the essence in these matters—it may be to the greater national advantage. I am not happy with the Minister's reply.

Mr. Monro: The last thing that I want is for the hon. Gentleman to be unhappy, particularly since he has been of great assistance during the passage of the Bill. We indicated on Second Reading that before the trustees step in they will have gone to immense trouble to find a recipient or new owner for the property. That will be done long before they pass over the money from the fund.
It is not so much that action will be taken in a hurry as that, when a decision is taken that property will be passed on to a gallery or the National Trust, we want speedy action then so that money is not lying in someone else's bank account when it could be earning interest or purchasing other properties. The spadework takes time. It will perhaps be done over months, but the actual ownership of the property by the trustees should be for the minimum time possible.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that it is a question of money lying in someone else's bank account. I am not sure that that would be my version of the situation. It is known that the Whips do not wish our proceedings to be too protracted. I do not wish to make a meal of the matter. I give notice, however, that I shall write to the Minister in the hope that there will be a Lords amendment and some reflection given to what is admittedly a complex issue. I shall not withdraw the amendment, but it will doubtless be negatived.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7

ANNUAL REPORTS AND ACCOUNTS

Mr. Neville Trotter: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 19, leave out from 'year' to end of line 21.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 20, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'direct;' to 'before' in line 29 and insert:

'(c) to submit the statement for audit by auditors (qualified in accordance with Schedule 1A) appointed by the Ministers on such terms and conditions as they may determine; and
(d) to send copies of the statement and of the auditors' report thereon to the Ministers.'.

No. 21, in line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) The Ministers shall cause to be published the report made to them under subsection (1) above, the statement of account and the auditors' report and shall lay copies before Parliament.'.

No. 45—new schedule, 'Qualification of Auditors—

1. A person is qualified for the purposes of section 7(2)(c) of this Act if he is a member of one of the recognised professional bodies.
2. Those bodies are—

the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
the Association of Certified Accountants; and
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.
3. A person is also qualified if he is a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948.
4. A Scottish firm is qualified if each of the partners in it is so.'.

Mr. Trotter: The purpose of these amendments is to allow private auditors and not the Comptroller and Auditor General to be appointed to the fund. Amendment No. 45 states that a person shall be qualified to audit the fund if he is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and


Wales or the similar bodies for Scotland and Ireland, a member of the Association of Certified Accountants or qualified as a member of a body of accountants established in this country and recognised by the Secretary of State for the purpose of auditing companies.
I should declare an interest as a member of the English institution, but I have no personal desire to be appointed as auditor of the fund. The Government should look favourably on the appointment of a private firm rather than the Comptroller and Auditor General as their policy, in general, is to support private enterprise and to minimise the Civil Service. My amendment seeks to achieve that purpose. The Minister may say that a question of constitutional principle is involved and that the amendment cannot be supported for that reason. If that is the case, I hope that he will elaborate on what that constitutional principle is, so that hon. Members may hear, in detail, arguments to support the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The evidence suggests to me that there is no such principle. My research shows that all the nationalised industries are audited by private firms. Many of the largest local authorities are so audited. Eighty per cent. of water authorities are so audited. The British National Oil Corporation is audited by private auditors. The British Airports Authority is audited by private auditors. Quangos, large and small, are audited by private auditors.
The Home Grown Cereal Authority, one of the smallest quangos, is audited by Thomson McLintock. The Housing Corporation, responsible for over £1,000 million—the figure could not be much bigger—is audited byDeloitte. The National Trust is audited by Price Waterhouse. The National Trust for Scotland is audited by Arthur Young McClelland Moores. The Crown Agents are now audited by Deloitte. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in that case it was necessary to pass a special Act in 1979 to remove the Comptroller and Auditor General. I shall not go into the sorry background. I am sure it is within your memory what happened. It is interesting to reflect that the Crown Agents have put the audit out to tender. That should appeal to a Government seeking to reduce public expenditure.

Deloitte must have submitted the lowest tender because it was successful. There are good precedents for the appointment of an independent auditor.
There are also precedents for changes being made while a Bill is before the House. The Dockwork Regulation Act 1976 was so changed. As a result, private auditors are now appointed to the National Dock Labour Board. More recently, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 was changed. As a result, private auditors will be appointed for the Central Council and the four national boards.

Mr. Clement Freud: I was unimpressed by the hon. Gentleman's mention of the Crown Agents' auditors. Would there be any financial saving to the fund itself if it went into the private sector as opposed to the appointment of Government auditors?

Mr. Trotter: That cannot be quantified in advance. I have no reason to suppose that independent firms of the highest repute would charge more than the Comptroller and Auditor General. An additional avantage relates to the question of advice. I believe that one of the eminent private firms of auditors would be able to give better advice to the trustees.
This leads me to the question of the independence of the trustees. In the Second Reading debate, a great deal was made of this point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that the fund was to be vested in, and administered by, independent trustees. He went onto compare it with a number of other bodies such as the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland, which have, as I mentioned, independent auditors. He made the point that the trustees should be generally independent and that they should take expert advice before reaching decisions and could seek that advice where they wished. I believe that this should also apply to the audit.
It is laid down in the first schedule to the Bill that the trustees are not to be Crown servants and that the trust should be a charity. I would have thought that independent auditors were the more appropriate. I do not think that one can argue that, just because public money is involved, the Comptroller and Auditor


General should be appointed as auditor. I believe that the examples I have quoted support that view.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: I confess to feeling slightly uncomfortable in rising to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). Like my hon. Friend, I am a member of one of the bodies set out in his schedule. In my case, however, not only would not wish to be appointed. I am totally incompetent to occupy the post because it is so long since I did any work of that nature.
It seems churlish, on a Bill of this importance, dealing with matters of national interest, to take issue on what, after all, is only a matter of administration. I console myself with the thought that, whereas other hon. Members have demonstrated that they are better fitted to comment on this general matter of national interest, I possess some special expertise in this sphere.
I doubt whether the facilities available to the Comptroller and Auditor General remotely match those of any of the leading national firms of accountants. If the Comptroller and Auditor General had not been auditor of the Crown Agents and that task had been carried out by an independent accounting firm, the Exchequer would almost certainly not have suffered to the extent that it did. It would have been possible for a negligence action to be brought against the firm of auditors, who would be insured at Lloyd's. I therefore support my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.
I should also like to comment on clause 7, which my hon. Friend seeks to amend. I wish to compare the degree of accountability that it contains with the degree of accountability required in the private sector. I refer specifically to public companies. Under clause 7, it is the duty of the trustees to prepare, in respect of each financial year, a statement of account in proper form and to send that statement to their auditors within eight months of the end of the year to which it relates. It speaks of a period before the end of November, referring to the accounting year ending on 31 March. Public companies that may be controlling assets worth many millions of pounds, and certainly dealing with a turnover in those

figures, do not merely have to submit their accounts for audit within eight months. They have to lay them before their shareholders in audited form within six months. Otherwise, they do not comply with the listing requirements of the Stock Exchange. It seems to me strange that a fund of this nature should have a lower degree of accountability laid on it than is laid on public companies in the private sector.
I apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave the Chamber shortly. I have to attend a meeting with some constituents who have worked for me for a long time. I know that I shall not agree with what they are asking me to do, and doubtless they are getting angrier and angrier.
I support the amendments.

7 pm

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for raising the matter dealt with in the amendments. I was very appreciative of the fact that representatives of the professional body to which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) belong came to see me in the House last night to put their case, which my hon. Friends have developed admirably today.
I have some reservations about accepting the amendment. However much we hope that over time the fund will attract substantial private donations, the reality is that by far the greatest part of its income will be derived from public funds. The House will rightly have a keen interest in how the moneys are spent and accounted for, and it is entirely right and proper that the Comptroller and Auditor General should conduct the audit and report to the House.
What I have said is in no way to belittle the accountancy bodies. I readily accept that their members could perfectly well perform the function. It is simply that where public money is involved and is paid out in advance of need the Comptroller and Auditor General is the appropriate person to turn to.
I have been looking at similar situations. One that is close to my other (responsibilities is the position of the Sports Council, where the sum involved is almost identical, at £15½ million. That is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
There are exceptions to the general rule, but they normally involve trading bodies or bodies whose expenses are wholly or almost wholly administrative. The fund fits into neither of those categories.
Secondly, it is likely that the Public Accounts Committee will wish at some stage to look beyond the auditors' report. It may wish to take evidence not only from the representatives of the fund but from the auditors. When the audit is performed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, that is straightforward. When it is performed by another person, it is far less so. The Comptroller and Auditor General may have to be asked to examine the books and submit his report. Therefore, use of the Comptroller and Auditor General as a matter of course facilitates the work of the House and its Committees.
A further consideration is that of cost. I know that all hon. Members will examine this matter carefully. Outside auditors would naturally expect to be paid their scale fee, which would come out of money that would otherwise be available to the fund's trustees.

Mr. Trotter: Is it being suggested that the Comptroller and Auditor General has cheaper staff than professional firms? Could that perhaps be why the Crown Agents' audit was carried out in the way that it was?

Mr. Monro: I should not like to say whether the staff were less expensive, but they would certainly be fully qualified.

Mr. Dalyell: This may be a difficult question to answer off the cuff, but is there any way in which we can be given a rough idea of the extra cost of outside auditors? It could be very expensive.

Mr. Monro: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer at once, but we have two distinguished accountants with us in the Chamber and a Treasury Minister. I could not even guess what the scale fee would be for the audit of the fund. Clearly, it would be a substantial sum, which would be paid for by the trustees and would, therefore, be money taken away from the fund.
I accept that my hon. Friends have raised an important point, but I think that they will both agree that their col-

leagues in the profession raised it at virtually the last moment. It is asking a great deal to expect a Government to come to a conclusion at such short notice.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth to seek to withdraw his amendment, but I shall look at the matter in greater detail, and if we think that it has substance we can deal with it in another place. I say that totally without commitment, because I have put forward a strong case for the Comptroller and Auditor General. What I am saying is that I am not shutting my mind to the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: It behoves the Minister to be tactful and polite to his hon. Friends, but I can afford to be less tactful and less polite. If the professional chartered accountants, who are supposed to be efficient folk, were going to raise this matter, they might have done it at the beginning, before we went all through the Committee stage, rather than spatchcocking it in at the last moment out of the blue, when we suddenly see an amendment on the Notice Paper. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who takes an active part in other Committees and is a diligent hon. Member, will agree that it is a bit irritating for those of us on both sides of the House who have given a great deal of time to the Bill suddenly to find the amendment placed before us.
I agree with the Government. Let us forget any irritation that we may feel with the chartered accountants. It is a legitimate amendment, and I do not make much of that point. What I make a good deal more of is the fundamental principle of responsibility to the Public Accounts Committee. As an alumnus of a previous PAC and one who worked on it for four years, I think it extremely desirable that the fund should be subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General and all the expertise at his command rather than have the matter cluttered up and complicated by outside auditors.
I ask the House not to get me wrong. In many cases outside auditors have their uses and should be brought into the Government's affairs. All that I am saying is that I do not think that there is a wonderful case for so doing here.

Mr. Wickenden: The hon. Gentleman speaks of the considerable expertise of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but


does he accept that the numbers of his qualified staff are limited to, at most, a few dozen, whereas the qualified staff of any one of the major five accounting firms in the country run into several thousand? Because of the width of their experience, the resources and advice available from those firms far outweigh anything that the Comptroller and Auditor General can possibly offer.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not have the latest figures, but when I first became a member of the PAC and Sir Edmund Compton was the Comptroller and Auditor General, I spent two days with him learning precisely what the holder of his office did. At that time, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a staff of at least 600, many of whom had varying degrees of qualifications. It is a formidable instrument of Government—the most formidable instrument of its kind that a Government have in Britain. It is certainly the only thing that we have approaching an instrument of the thoroughness of the Senate committees in the United States.

Mr. Trotter: I quite accept the tenor of the comments about the lateness of the amendment. It is a comment that I myself made to the institute. Apparently, a letter sent some weeks ago was not received, which is a pity.
In view of the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister that he will consider the matter further, I shall seek to withdraw the amendment. I only hope that my hon. Friend is prepared to meet the institute for further discussion, similar to that which we held yesterday.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONERS

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 6, line 28, after '(a)', insert '(aa).—[Mr. Monro.]

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 6, line 29, after 'above', insert
'which is willing to accept it'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendment No. 29.

Mr. Monro: This amendment meets an undertaking that I gave in Committee that we would look at the implications of the word "direct", which had alarmed the national museums and galleries. They were concerned that they might be obliged, under the Bill, to accept objects on conditions which they found repugnant. In particular, they feared that they might be required to retain nominal ownership of an object which was to be left in its historic setting, even though they were not satisfied with the security, conservation and public access.
I gladly repeat the assurance I gave in Committee that Ministers would not contemplate forcing recipients to take in property against their will. It was suggested that Ministers could not bind the trustees of the fund, who might take over the responsibility for acceptance in lieu if an order were made under clause 14. The amendments we are now debating put the matter beyond doubt even in that eventuality, and amendment No. 29 really is consequential on amendment No. 27. I hope that this clarifies the assurance I gave in Committee and will be accepted by the House this evening.

Mr. Dalyell: It was made clear during the Committee debate on amendment No. 36, together with amendment No. 109 and other amendments, that there was much disquiet in the museum world over the thought that museums might be directed under clause 9 (2) to accept property accepted in lieu under conditions which they might find repugnant. The Minister gave a categorical assurance that this would not be the case.
The same subject came up again later on in the debate on indemnities and the Minister responded by saying that the thought that any such directions should take place was repugnant, not only to hon. Members but to the heritage world beyond the confines of the museum lobby.
It was in earnest of this and to probe the position that I tabled three amendments, which have not been selected and to which I do not intend to refer, knowing your hawk-like eye in these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is a pleasure to see that the Govment have taken the point, and amendments Nos. 27 and 29 certainly leave no doubt as to the intention not to force museums and so on to accept property accepted in lieu against their will.
I wonder why a similar amendment has not been made to clause 9 (1). Perhaps it is simply to ensure that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have to accept Ministers' directions. I should like to ask why there has not been a similar amendment to clause 9 (1). The faithful PPS has left his post, but I see that the Government Whip is there in time of need, so I ask that question.

Mr. Cormack: We again say "Thank you" to my hon. Friend. Many of us are very concerned about this. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and I raised this issue over a long period, when the Bill was first mooted, because directors of our great national museums—indeed, of any museums—are rightly proud of their reputation, independence and integrity and they did not like to feel that they were being coerced or directed or that there was any chance of that. The point was well made in Committee and it has obviously been well taken. I for one am truly thankful.

Mr. Faulds: These are attempts, it seems to me, to meet—and not altogether successfully—the strong objections which arose from the museums following their somewhat gratuitous insertion, represented by the reference back to clause 3(7) (a), into a subsection drafted for the environment bodies, represented by references back to clause 3(7) (b) and (c). But the phrase in this paragraph "on such conditions as he may direct" is really most inappropriate for and disliked by the museums. It need never have been brought into this if a separate subsection had been devoted to museums alone, as I suggested in my amendment No. 23—which, of course, I do not intend to discuss because it was not selected.
I think that the point could have been met more simply had the Minister listened to us in Committee and, instead of bringing forward this new idea, had used the word "specify" instead of "direct". It seems to me that that would have met the matter more simply and would have been very much in the spirit of what the museums wanted to see.

Mr. Monro: I am glad that hon. Gentlemen accept that I have responded to the debate in Committee. We have attempted to do that throughout the Report stage.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me about clause 9(1). The point there—and I agree that it is not too clear—is that, unlike the position in (2) and (3), where there is an institutional body, there is no institutional body in clause 9(1) to which anything could be referred. But, again, while I cannot give any commitment, I will look at this carefully. I do not think there is a point here; I believe it is clear. We have dealt, through the amendment, with the main point on which the Committee wished to be assured about directions to museums andgalleries concerning objects they might not wish to receive or conditions they would not wish to accept. I believe that we have gone a very long way to meet the wishes of the Committee and I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian is partly reassured, if not totally so. At least, we have gone as far as we possibly can to meet the Committee's views.

Mr. Dalyell: I would be totally assured if it were found necessary, after talking to the Government's advisers, to introduce a clearing-up Lords amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 6, line 34 after 'person', insert
'who is willing to accept it'.

No. 50, in page 7, line 2 at end insert—
'(5) In exercising their powers under this section in respect of an object or collection or group of objects having a significant association with a particular place, the Ministers shall consider whether it is appropriate for the object, collection or group to be, or continue to be, kept in that place, and for that purpose the Ministers shall obtain such expert advice as appears to them to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 14

TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 28 after 'Heritage', insert 'Memorial'.
This is virtually a consequential amendment that should have been included at Committee stage.

Mr. Faulds: I want to comment on this in order to raise the matter of a letter which I have received today from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and which I think is very important.
First, however, since elsewhere throughout the Bill the fund is now referred to as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the omission of "Memorial" in this line should be remedied. But this insertion, which is necessary for reasons of consistency, also serves to reinforce the view of many that it would be undesirable and improper for a body with memorial connotations to be involved in any way in the administration of acceptances in satisfaction of tax, with the potentialities for controversy which could so easily arise from that. This, however, is where the implementation of clause 14 would seem to lead us, constituting a further reason for the misgivings which are widely felt regarding its apparently arbitrary insertion in the Bill.
It seems to me not to be sufficiently realised that the representatives of our public museums are most categorically opposed to the prospect, opened up by clause 14, of their having to deal with the trustees of the fund in substitution for the Ministers in matters relating to acceptances in lieu. It is, moreover, somewhat ironical that the policy of entrusting the administration of these matters to the Ministers, which is generally known to be the concept advocated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself, has always received consistent and unwavering support from the museums.
In this context, I am delighted that to-day I have received a letter, sent out this day and written, I think, this day by the Minister, which I should like to read, because I think it puts on the record for the museums the important assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gives in that letter. I am sure that the Minister is aware that I have had this letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today, in which he says:" I am, of course, aware of the strong feelings of the museums that acceptance in lieu should remain a ministerial responsibility. Equally, I know that others in the heritage world feel just as strongly that the responsibility should pass to the Trustees. The provisions inclause 14 in no way pre-empt any decision about the transfer of responsibility; they merely permit a change to be made without recourse to primary legislation though not, of course, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

Once the Bill is passed, the position will be that responsibility for acceptance in lieu rests with me and Michael Heseltine, which is the position preferred by the museums. I am sure you understand that I must take account of the views of others in the heritage world even though they are not my direct responsibility. I hope that you will agree that the statutory position after the Bill is enacted will be in line with the wishes of the museums.
I am fully aware of the importance that the museums attach to the acceptance of the in lieu provisions, and I give you my firm assurance that I will not put forward a draft order for parliamentary approval unless I have the willing consent of the museums.
I think that that is a most important statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy and I am glad that I received the letter in time—literally a few moments before I came into the Chamber. I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman has come to join us now. That is a great pleasure for all of us. We have missed him this afternoon. But he has had a very good stand-in, may I tell him, so he will have to be on his best performance to keep up with him. I am delighted that I have had that letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think that it puts at rest the worries of the museum world about the insertion of clause 14. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Monro: I am glad that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) took the opportunity to read my right hon. Friend's letter, which puts in much more eloquent and clear terms what I was saying in Committee. I hope that all those who are concerned with our heritage are clear where we stand on clause 14. I hope that there is no concern about the way in which it will be implemented in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

INDEMNITIES FOR OBJECTS ON LOAN

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 22, leave out from "(a)" to "in" in line 25 and insert:
a museum, art gallery or other similar institution".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 36 and 49.

Mr. Monro: The purpose of the amendment is to provide clarification. During the last sitting in Committee, clause 16 was virtually rewritten. When that had taken place it seemed fairly complicated, and we have again redrafted the clause. We have made our intentions clear. I hope that the clause as it now stands will be more beneficial to those who are concerned with and involved in our heritage. They will read the Bill, and they will want it to be clear. They will want to be clear where the Government stand in terms of the institutions and bodies that are referred to in the clause. I hope that this is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Dalyell: I promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr.Harrison) that I would convey to the Government the thanks of the Royal Air Force museum at Hendon for what they have done. The museum was mentioned in Committee, and my right hon. Friend is an active supporter of it. I convey thanks on behalf of the parliamentary RAF group.

Mr. Monro: As the vice-chairman of the Royal Air Force group, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made those comments. I was especially keen that the Royal Air Force museum at Hendon should be included. It is a splendid museum, and the more publicity that it can get, the better.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 9, line 28, after 'maintained' insert—
'(1) wholly or mainly out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of moneys appropriated by Measure; or
(ii)'.

No. 49, in page 9, line 30, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—
'(c) any library falling within section 3(7)(aa) above;'.

No. 38, in page 10, line 19, leave out from 'section' to first 'to' in line 21.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 19

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, REPEALS AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 11, line 7, at end insert—
' "university" includes a university college and a college, school or hall of a university.'—[Mr. Monro.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

THE TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE MEMORIAL FUND

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 13, line 15, leave out emoluments and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 43, in page 13, line 17, at end insert—
'(3) Emoluments paid to the Chairman and to the other Trustees shall not be less than £5,000 and £1,000 per annum respectively'.

No. 44, in page 13, line 17, at end insert—
'(3) Emoluments for trustees shall be not less than £2,000 p.a. per trustee'.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government move the amendment because we feel that it involves an important issue of principle. That is why the matter was taken to a Division when it was pressed in Committee. We have done our best to accommodate ourselves to the wishes of hon. Members, but this issue involves potential public expenditure. We have considered the matter and we take the view that there should not be the possibility of payment being made to the trustees.
No post of chairman or trustee of a national museum or art gallery receives remuneration. Nor do the members of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art or the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries receive remuneration. These are all positions that involve great sacrifice of time and leisure and require dedicated and continual work. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the members of these and other bodies who work so selflessly for the safeguarding of our heritage.
It is true that the chairman of the Historic Buildings Council, the chairman of the Ancient Monuments Board and the trustees of the British Library receive remuneration, but these are people who work closely with the Government in posts which have a strong Executive element.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have followed closely


the debates that took place in Committee. Comparisons were made with bodies such as the Horserace Betting Levy Board. The trustees of the proposed fund will have a different function and the analogy is unsound. The trustees will be acting much more in the capacity of providers of assistance to those who will be taking initiatives in seeking to acquire property of heritage quality.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that an analogy was made with the chairman of Horserace Betting Levy Board. Of course, we cannot go into the financial circumstances of the chairman. It would be impertinent to do so. However, Sir Stanley Raymond could not have taken his post unless he had been paid. Are we saying that the chairman of the trustees, ipso facto, is to be a rich man of means of his own? If so, I do not think that that is satisfactory.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have been bombarded with suggestions for the post of chairman and with applications to be the chairman. They seem to cover all social classes and all income groups. There seems to be no practical issue at stake. It is partly a matter of supply and demand. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the supply is becoming embarrassing.

Mr. Dalyell: The supply may be embarrassing, but what happens if the best candidate out of such a rich supply is someone who cannot afford to take up the post because he has no private means? The right hon. Gentleman is implying that we shall not necessarily be able to choose the most suitable candidate because the means of the candidate will have to be taken into account.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that it is to be a full-time job. I do not wish to enter into the details of the applicants and candidates. Some of them have private means. The vast majority are in employment of various sorts. The authority, the prestige and the status of the trustees will be diminished in the eyes of people in the arts, rather than enhanced, if they can receive remuneration. This point has been made to me quite independently by a number of people, and I have reached the same conclusion.
Apart from that point of principle, there are two important practical considerations. The first I made in answer to the interjection by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). There is no shortage of able candidates volunteering to serve as trustees, and they come from a wide range of backgrounds.

I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lothian is genuinely concerned about this matter, but not only will it not be a full-time occupation—we would expect people to pursue their normal avocation—but we shall be able to give a loss of earnings allowance, which can be an allowance of considerable importance. But I do not believe that an honorarium—which in the nature of things would have to be a very modest one of up to about £1,000 a year—will make available a vast and otherwise untapped field of potential trustees.

Secondly, £15,000 for 10 trustees and a chairman—that would be the absolute minimum—would not be that small a bite out of this fund. It would not be right to pay trustees at the expense of the heritage. It would be unpopular and a considerable source of criticism. Therefore, I have to advise the House that it is the Government's considered view that if this amendment is not made and the words are allowed to stand—I hope that it will not be so—the Government will rely on the fact that the power not to pay the trustees is permissive. I must make that quite clear. That is the Government's position.

The Committee discussed whether the Government should have the power to pay trustees, even if they did not want to do so at present. But it is not good law to bestow on the Government a power that they do not intend to exercise, and it is slightly deceptive to accept a power which, in the opinion of the Government, should not be exercised. If this amendment is not made, it will be necessary to consider adding a provision adding the trustees to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, at least in so far as they receive emoluments; otherwise, we should restrict the field rather than extend it.

I sympathtise with the motives that lie behind the desire of those who want the amendment proposed in Committee to


stand. But at a time when the Government are reviewing the whole of public expenditure and are dedicated to good national housekeeping and economies it would be singularly inappropriate, having made available a considerable sum of money for the fund, to set up what would inevitably be denounced as a new paid quango.

Those arguments outweigh the undoubted weight of the arguments which I know are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and Opposition Members. But we would prejudice the good reception and success of this venture by persisting with these proposals. I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Cormack: I appreciate the chivalrous gesture of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). It was an amendment headed by my name that was passed with support from both sides of the Committee.
It gives me no pleasure to be in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to whom I pay tribute for all that he has done to enable us to have the Bill. It is a small matter on which we are falling out. Before my right hon. Friend entered the Chamber, we all congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Munro) not only on being such a willing and helpful leader in Committee but on coming back on Report with a number of amendments that meet most of the points that we made.
As I said, it gives my absolutely no pleasure to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I do. After all, this is only an enabling measure. There is no need for the Government to implement it. Had my right hon. Friend come to the Dispatch Box and said "Yes, we accept this but we cannot see our way at the moment to paying trustees", I should have accepted that as a matter of judgment. The Committee accepted that by making the power enabling and not obliging the Government to pay.
I must cross swords with my right hon. Friend on a number of matters. Many pieces of legislation are enabling

and they are no less valuable because of that. There are a number of enabling measures dealing with preservation and the heritage. For instance, there are the powers that local councils have to make grants to historic buildings within their areas. They are not obliged to do so, but the power is there. It was on that sort of lines that we thought when we advanced this amendment.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the chairman of the Historic Buildings Council, and I want to concentrate on that. All along—all hon. Members know that made this point clearly in Committee—I have not been concerned about payment to trustees as such, but many people involved with the heritage believe that in the initial years the chairmanship of this fund will be an onerous responsibility and amount to almost a full-time job.
I raised that point for the first time on Second Reading. I had a great deal of support from all quarters of the heritage lobby—if I may call it that. Many of those who supported me were far from poverty-stricken, but they agreed that it was wrong to restrict appointments of this nature to the rich or the elderly.
If the fund is to be properly managed and play the significant part which we all believe it will play, being chairman will he no sinecure. Indeed, the analogy of the chairman of the Historic Buildings Council is a good one. If it is right to pay the chairman of that council, surely it is right to have at least the opportunity to pay the chairman of the National Heritage Memorial trustees.

Mr. Dalyell: Of course it is.

Mr. Cormack: This is a very modest proposal. My right hon. Friend has done much to meet us on other points, and I had hoped that he would concede this one. If he does not—I respect his opinion and I know that he will respect mine—I cannot do other than vote in the same way as I did in Committee. I shall seek to vote down the amendment because that is what I believe would be the wish of many who are interested in our heritage. I return to the point that I made earlier. We are seeking only to enable the Government to do this.
I have one final point to make. This is a subject on which we have operated across party lines, to the benefit of everyone. I do not want anyone to be


excluded as a potential candidate because of his or her lack of financial means. I want the field to be open.

Mr. Dalyell: That is right.

Mr. Cormack: That is why I moved the amendment in the first place, and it was in that spirit that I referred to the matter during Second Reading. It is with those views still firmly in mind that I shall go into the Lobby tonight if I am obliged to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: First, I should like to pay tribute to the part that has been played by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). I shall certainly not make party capital out of this issue. On the other hand, it is necessary to refer to what has actually happened, because I believe that the Leader of the House let the cat out of the bag.
The key word is "quangos". It is quite clear from what was said that the blessed Margaret in Downing Street—concerned with steel, employment legislation and heaven knows what else—has told the Leader of the House "With regard to this Heritage Bill, let there be no quangos whatever else you do." I always know when I have struck oil, because the Leader of the House gives a watery grin that we know so well. Likewise, a laugh from the Minister of State, Treasury reveals that one has told the truth.
Let us start from the basis that this is a prime ministerial dictum, even though the right hon. Lady knows very little about the details of the issue, and I do not blame her for that. We should point out why the Prime Minister—for it is she who has done this thing—is wrong in this instance.
First, she is wrong for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West. In the same breath, I should like to ask the Government how much time they think that the chairman of the trustees can devote to this task. The fact is that, if he or she is to be at all effective, the person will have to devote a lot of time, which excludes a large number of suitable candidates. Incidentally, I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-

West in that the main issue relates to the chairman and that the other trustees are a relatively lesser issue.
Secondly, the Leader of the House said that trustees would be diminished in the eyes of the arts world if they were paid. Does he deny that that is what he said? No, he does not. Therefore, I reported accurately what he said. I should like to know what evidence there is for that statement. Who are all the people in thearts world who have said "Trustees must not be paid, otherwise they will be diminished in our eyes"? Frankly, I doubt whether there is any evidence for such a statement. As is known by every hon. Member who served on the Committee, some of us have had close relations with various people in the arts world, otherwise we would not have been able to make the contribution that we did. I have met no group or individual in the arts world who has said that the status of trustees would be diminished if they were given some remuneration. Therefore, what the Leader of the House said was a terminological inexactitude. I defy him to produce the evidence for the remark that he made.
I wish that the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer),who both spoke so eloquently on this subject in Committee, were present. I can only suspect that they have been exiled to the Conservative equivalent of Siberia, but I am willing to be told that I am wrong.

Mr. Cormack: Neither of my hon. Friends expected this matter to be debated. In fact, they are both paired. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation.

Mr. Dalyell: I am aghast at that, because I have known the hon. Member for Eastleigh for nearly 20 years and I would not say that he wasnaive. It really stretches the imagination to believe that he did not think that this matter would be voted on.

Mr. Cormack: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not here to participate, but none of us knew about the Government amendment until yesterday. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh is doing something extremely important.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Eastleigh is an honourable man and it is not like him to shirk his responsibilities. I must say that he and I are united with regard to the Government amendment. Like him, I did not anticipate it because I thought that the Government would submit to the discussion that occurred in Committee.

Mr. Donald Coleman: That makes it even more shady.

Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend has rightly said, that makes it a great deal worse. If the Government intended to do this, they might: at least have had the courtesy to warn their hon. Friends. I shall not lecture Front Bench spokesmen on courtesy, but they might have told the two hon. Members concerned about what they were up to.
Thirdly, the Leader of the House told us that no such post receives remuneration, although he accepted that the chairmanship of the HBC did. The review body on the export of works of art is a very different institution. It is nothing like full-time. I happen to know something about this because I have recently asked the Attorney-General about it in another context. The review body is totally different—at least, I think that it is. The fact is that we spent a lot of time in Committee discussing the trustees, yet even now we are far from clear about what their job specification is. The Minister was honourably open in saying that that would evolve. However, the job of chairman is likely to be one approaching a full-time job.
Fourthly, it is all very well to use the analogy of the review body on the export of works of art, but I and a number of other hon. Members represent new towns, and we all know that the chairmanship of a new town development corporationis a paid post. It does not behove the Leader of the House to make such an egregious speech without recognising that there are many other bodies of which the chairman is automatically paid a reasonable sum. If he were not paid such a sum, many candidates would be excluded.
I did not care for the right hon. Gentleman's remark that it is not right to pay trustees at the expense of the heritage. Will his next argument be that it

is not right for the chairman of a new town development corporation to be paid at the expense of the ratepayers, owner-occupiers and tenants of new town houses? If it is, it is trawling the bottom of the ocean.
There was also the argument about posts with a strong executive element, which the Leader of the House believed should be treated somewhat differently. I may be wrong, but as I understand it there is a large executive element in relation to the trustees. Certainly, it appears from the literature on this subject that the trustees are to have a good deal of executive power—at least, in the mind of the Under-Secretary they are to have a good deal of executive power.
We then told the Leader of the House "If you do this, you will then raise complications with regard to the House of Commons Disqualification Act." Does that mean that two or more of the trustees are to be Members of the House of Commons? I am not happy about that, and I pray in aid my distinguished ex-colleague, Mr. George Strauss, who for many years was a trustee of the British Museum. In no way do I want to quote him out of context, but he used to say that there were certain problems about Members of the House of Commons being trustees. In regard to this body, I would have thought that it was positively undesirable for Members of the House of Commons to be among the trustees. If there is an argument against, it would be germane and relevant if we were told.
The question of inserting a power to pay the trustees was raised in Committee. It was not pressed to a Division, but at any rate the power is still in the Bill. Amendment No. 43 goes further and actually requires that the trustees are paid. A pay structure is suggested by the figures £5,000 and £1,000 per annum, thus reflecting the degree of responsibility and likely time involvement of the chairman and trustees respectively.
There are strong feelings—they were expressed in Committee—that not only must there be a power to pay trustees—and the Bill has progressed that far already—but that the trustees should actually be paid. Without such a requirement, we may yet find Ministers jibbing at paying emoluments, thinking that they


can still find people of adequate capacity to serve and not appointing those who should have the job, in order to save trifling sums of money, in the context of the fund, let alone of national expenditure. It is the best people that are needed here. Financial consideration must not enter into the matter. The trustees should be paid.
That said, it should be emphasised that this debate, rather like the long debate on not reimbursing the commissioners of the Inland Revenue with real money but rather doing it painlessly with paper "units of account"—indeed, the whole question of payment for the trustees—is not an argument about heritage. It is about good management, sensible staffing and fair treatment. Let us be celar that there is no discord between us on heritage as such. It is an argument about the good management of a public body.
While management and staffing are under discussion, what about the duties of the trustees? What progress have Ministers made on the delicate subject of the appointment of the chairman and other trustees? It gives me no pleasure to be cantankerous on the subject. Indeed, this is the first sign of cantankerous behaviour on the Bill—certainly from myself and those who have taken part in the debate. However, we feel strongly about the matter. We feel that it is an issue of principle and that the good management and success of the heritage trustees—heaven knows, we want them to succeed in their important task—are at stake. In that spirit, I beg the Leader of the House, with his power as a senior member of the Government, to say that he has changed his mind after all. There is nothing disgraceful about changing one's mind.

Mr. Freud: I rise to my feet in support of a good argument, but I look around to find that there are fewer than 20 hon. Members in the Chamber. The argument has been well rehearsed in Committee, but I believe that a new element in the debate has been introduced by the Government's new amendment.
I should like to quote from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He said that no similar appointees receive remuneration. That is a rotten argument. The fact that something has

happened of which we disapprove is no reason why it should go on happening. He also said that the authority status and prestige of those who are not paid will be enhanced. On that point I argue most of all with the right hon. Gentleman.
I have obtained from the Library a volume which I would not recommend to anybody for light reading. It is called "A Directory of Paid Public Appointments made by Ministers, 1978."If we are to take the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seriously, it would seem that all the persons in that volume have diminished authority, status and prestige by virtue of the fact that they are paid. Not even the Minister would agree that that is fair comment.
The Minister said that it would be wrong to compare the Gaming Board with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Of course, he is right. It is always wrong to compare anyone with anything. However, it is fair to look at the sort of quangos or paid public appointments that are made by Ministers working inunison one with another, in order to see in how many of those the members are paid. In the British Film Fund there are two paid members. The British Library Fund has eight paid members. There are paid members in the British Tourist Authority and the British Waterways Board. The Countryside Commission does not have paid members, but it has a paid deputy-chairman and a paid vice-chairman. Of course, all the bodies have well-or reasonably well-paid chairmen. I come to the Cumbernauld development corporation. I am going through the list in alphabetical order and the House will be relieved to hear that I stop at the letter 'g'.
There are 12 paid members on the Development Board for Rural Wales. There are paid members on the English Tourist Board and the Forestry Commission. Indeed, the Forestry Commission is a body that is not a million miles removed from the Heritage Fund. The part-time chairman and the five part-time members are paid four-figure sums. I end on the Gaming Board of Great Britain—I will not go on. It seems to me that the Government are wrong to adduce the argument that to be paid diminishes the standing of the people. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has proved that it


is wrong to say that the arts world deplores or feels worried about payment and any connection with it.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon Gentleman agree that senior Cabinet Ministers who make statements about the alleged opinions of other people—be they in the art world or any other world—should be able to produce the evidence for those statements? Frankly, some of us do not believe that those statements were ever made.

Mr. Freud: Yes; it would be hard not to agree with that sort of statement.
I shall be brief because I see the Whips racing around the Chamber trying to persuade hon. Members to end the debate. [Interruption.] Well, I saw them a moment ago.
I should like to raise one further point. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it would not look right in the economic climate that we are currently enjoying—or perhaps failing to enjoy on this side of the House—to set up a new quango with new paid appointments. I remind the Chancellor and the Minister of State of their own self-financing policies. By paying a modest but realistic sum both to the trustees and to the chairman, there is every chance of achieving the self-financing upon which the Government are so keen. I believe that the right people will be able to get the right items for the National Heritage Fund at the right price. I believe that to be the policy of the Government, and I totally agree with that policy.
If you call my amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall press it. However, I shall certainly vote against the Government if they persist in not accepting the opinion of the majority of the Committee and, I believe, the majority in the country.

Mr. Faulds: What seems like a long time ago now, I gave way with a chivalrous gesture to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). He should have known me better. It was not a chivalrous gesture but a calculated kindness. I wanted him to go on record as opposing his right hon. Friend's intention of downing the will of the Committee. I am sorry if hon. Members are upsetting the Whips by delaying the House on this matter.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): Continue.

Mr. Faulds: I shall continue at some length. It is an important matter, and we should get it on record that there is general disagreement within the Chamber—certainly there was in Committee—with the Government's intention not to listen to the opinions of the Committee. There are enough hon. Members present in the Chamber to express the will of those on the Committee and those who are concerned about these matters. Nevertheless, we shall see how many hon. Members the right hon. Gentleman manages to muster from the musty corners of the House when it comes to the vote.

8 pm

If no emoluments are available either to the chairman or to the trustees, there is a danger that there will be the usual establishment assortment on the board of trustees. I am not making a generalised attack—it is a risk that I often run, and I sometimes succumb to it—on the boards and trustees who run aspects of our heritage. Most of them do a very good job. However, it is well known that there are a large number of people on those boards whose names simply decorate them. They do not take an active part in the proceedings of the trust. They are there because they are well-to-do, they have the time, and their titles look good on the headings of the notepaper. That is the danger that the right hon. Gentleman runs if he insists on downing the will of the Committee.

I can only quote at the right hon. Gentleman—I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not here to speak for himself—the words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), his colleague, who said in Committee:
It is essential, if we are to make a success of this, that the base be as broad as possible.
He was talking about the trustees. He continued:
We do not want the heritage to be thought to be a matter for a limited number of people. It is everybody's heritage. That cannot be put too strongly.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present tonight. That morning in Committee was most impressive. It was not just we terrible Socialists who said that people should be paid for their


public duties. Conservative Members who are not normally thought of as being on the Left wing of the party were most reactionary. They supported our arguments. It is unacceptable to hon. Members who served on that Committee and discussed the matter at great length that our will should be disregarded.

It is important to remember that for the chairman, and probably the trustees—the chairman may have so much to deal with that he delegates some matters to the trustees—this will be a more or less full-time job. We are living in a period of economic stress. We shall find increasingly in the next few years that people are forced to sell properties, objects d'art and paintings, and that more and more such works of art will appear on the market, works of art which we want to keep in Britain as part of our national heritage. There will be a flood of problems to consider.

Again I quote from the Committee proceedings, because the right hon. Gentleman was not present. I said that
in the economic circumstances of our time, there is likely to be an increasing number of cases in which properties, land and objects will come up for consideration…It is more than likely that this will be a time-consuming job. There will be crisis after crisis. The job will not be a sinecure. It will need a great deal of time and frequent meetings."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 January 1980; c. 270–75.]

If the Government expect the board of trustees to do the job properly—it will be a full-time job—they must reconsider the sort of people whom they will appoint. It will be very disturbing if suitable candidates for the board of trustees—I hope that we shall all play a part in putting up names—are prevented from taking on a job of this nature simply because they cannot afford to do so. That argument cannot be repeated enough to get it into the right hon. Gentleman's noddle that we must have a suitable selection of representative people on the board of trustees, not the decorative establishment figures that I am beginning to think the right hon. Gentleman may have in mind.

It would be interesting to know who the Minister has in mind. I wish we knew, particularly about the chairman. Some hon. Members made representations earlier about the unacceptability of one or two names that were running

around in his head. We hope that he has excised them for good.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Exorcised them.

Mr. Faulds: Well, if they are in that sort of spirit, perhaps it is better to exorcise rather than excise them. I cannot judge the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends better than he can.
The members of the Committee considered the matter at great length, and in their wisdom they defeated the Government. It was a very happy occasion. The Government should have the grace to accept that decision. I urge all hon. Members to have the guts, when the matter comes to a Division, to move into the Opposition Lobby and defeat the Government on this important aspect.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: It is sad that the Leader of the House has introduced a discordant note at this late stage, having kept at a happy distance from the working of the Committee. He has struck across the strong feeling of the Committee on the matter of payment of the trustees. He said that this involves an important question of principle. For him, the principle was a possibility of public expenditure. That in itself is an important question of principle. He is afraid of the implications and potential of public expenditure, but he is more than happy to accept potential public service and for that service to be unpaid.
It has already been argued that it is inadequate to list the museums and galleries and to say that no payment should be taken by their trustees and to pretend that that is the ideal system. I think it is sad that many trustees are not paid, and that is such a valuable use of precedent in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the analogies which were drawn in Committee were to bodies with a strong executive element. We have heard the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) review various bodies which, although they do ber for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) review payment.
I speak from experience. I was the chairman of the Wales Tourist Board. A good deal of the work involved was non-executive. It involved exercising discretion over grants and loans, precisely an aspect of the activity which the trustees would exercise in this connection.


Board members and the chairman received a modest payment, and it is proper that in this case the trustees should receive payment.
The Leader of the House referred to the fact that there would be provision for allowances as compensation for loss of earnings. That is not a good way of showing recognition for services. The compensation received within any group of people will be different, according to the different earnings capacity of their earning commitment. It is improper that their role as trustees should be reflected in that way.
It was argued that there was no shorttage of candidates. That is no justification. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if there were a shortage of candidates he would be prepared to buy them? I do not see that the availability of candidates is relevant to the argument of principle whether payment should be made for the job. The right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to bestow a power, as appears in the clause as amended in Committee, which the Government do not intend to exercise. Surely that is done frequently. That might happen under clause 14 of the Bill. Do not the provisions of that clause bestow a power—transferring some functions—which the Government do not propose to exercise, or is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that on the basis of that argument he does not approve of exercising bestowing powers? Is he telling us, in a devious way, that he intends to implement clause 14? If he is not saying that, I do not see the force of his argument.
The Government, in their economic and taxation policy, have constantly used the argument of a causal link between effort and reward. The effort should be to reward, and reward should breed effort. We are talking of a group of trustees whom we expect to show effort and dedication. Why does the principle, so widely deployed by the Government, of properly recognising effort not apply here?
It is a disappointing amendment. I implore the Chancellor at this late stage to review the position and take cognisance of the fact that the Committee looked carefully into the question and was strongly of the view that there should be

a measure of payment to the trustees. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) on his—

Mr. Dalyell: Decision to vote against the Government.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. I am not a Whip or a slave-driver. My hon. Friend must make up his own mind. When I was interrupted, I was about to congratulate my hon. Friend on his moderate approach to the problem and the persuasive way in which he put his argument.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Hudson Davies) was less than just to me in his reflections on my appearance to move the amendment. I did so because I realised that the amendment would be unpopular with some hon. Members. I therefore thought it right that I should come to move it myself. That was my motivation. Otherwise, I could have hovered without until Third Reading.
I must make it clear that this is a Government decision made right at the beginning. The new element is not the amendment. The new element of payment came in in Committee. That was when it was first proposed. It was never envisaged by the Government when the Bill was brought before the House that these trustees would be paid.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) alleges that he always knows what is the truth when he finds me smiling. I say to him, attach no importance to my smiles. It is simply that I find it easier to smile than to scowl. It has no particular significance, except that I am today my normal cheerful self, in spite of my regret that we are having some controversy at this late stage.
The hon. Member for West Lothian said that it was "all the fault of the blessed Margaret in No. 10". I assure him, first, that the title is wrong. On the day that she entered No. 10, she rose from "blessed" to "saint". The Prime Minister, of course, has overall responsibility, but the amendment is not being moved at her particular instigation. It is in accord with the general policy of the Government with regard to the Bill.
In spite of the impressive list of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud),


which I believe that we have reduced, it is also true that it would be inappropriate to be adding to that list unnecessarily at a time when we are trying to reduce it.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked me for evidence about the reaction in the arts world. I can only say that there is evidence. No doubt people have reacted in different ways, but the view has been represented to me that it would be a bad thing and prejudice the standing of the trustees, not personally but as trustees, and that is what I am concerned with. I stress that it is intended that if there is any loss of earnings there should be provision made for that to be made up.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to be offensive, but will the right hon. Gentleman name one important segment of the arts world that has put that point of view? The evidence that most of us have is absolutely to the contrary. People in the arts world think that it is extremely important as a matter of principle that trustees should be paid. The image too often associated with the very well-heeled is not desirable for our heritage, which belongs to everyone.
Where has all the evidence come from? I am not asking for a whole list of names, only one or two.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Journalists do not reveal their sources, and it would be quite improper for me to reveal confidential expressions of opinion passed to me as Minister. Of course, the hon. Gentleman's experience is different from mine. If he can find any opinion that is shared universally throughout the arts world, I should be grateful to be made aware of it. It is a world in which there is a wide variety of individuals and, therefore, a wide variety of opinions.

Mr. Dalyell: One final point—and it is my final point.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Good.

Mr. Dalyell: On two occasions, in October and December, the National Trust in Scotland convened widespread conferences, casting the net over all the heritage bodies in Scotland. On a number of issues there were differences of opinion, but it is my recollection that on this issue every one of the bodies

centred on Edinburgh, which is a microcosm of Britain, agreed that it was important, as a matter of principle, that there should be payment for the chairman and the other trustees. Opinion was not necessarily unanimous on other topics, but it was unanimous on this point.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept the hon. Gentleman's evidence. I can only tell him that that is not the unanimous view of the arts world.
A thought came into my mind when I was listening to the interesting contribution of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely. I believe that it is important to preserve the voluntary principle as far as possible. It is an important part of our national life. One sees it operating in all sorts of spheres, and particularly where spiritual values are involved—in nursing, medicine, religion and the arts. There is some value in preserving it where we can.

Mr. Freud: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the voluntary principle could be preserved if people were able to give the money back? We are simply arguing for a facility for these people to be paid in order not to exclude anyone from consideration as a trustee.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting suggestion. However, it would cause more complications than it would solve. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was concerned that we might have too many members from the Establishment. Establishment is not a state of income but a state of mind.

Mr. Faulds: It is frequently a state of income.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, it is a state of mind. The hon. Gentleman is an Establishment figure. I think that he would agree with that. He is an Establishment figure on two grounds—vast income from the acting profession and—

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: He looks like a member of the Establishment to me.

Mr. Faulds: Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about my income from my old profession. I devote far too much time to the House rather than to my old profession. That may be


regretted by some of my colleagues, and the right hon. Gentleman must not damage me in public by asserting that I am an Establishment figure. If that has happened to me after 13 years in the House, perhaps I should give up.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Rather than face that horrific possibility, I withdraw all imputations that the hon. Member is a member of the Establishment. As I look at him, I do have doubts. Never mind. I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance.
I am not a member of the Establishment on either ground. I am a free spirit and I range as far as the Chief Whip allows me. [Interruption.] I am very glad to see my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary here. He is, after

all, the Patronage Secretary—another of his titles—and is a well-known patron of the arts. That is an unsolicited tribute.

I am sorry that I have not been able to accede to the wishes of those who are here. If I could, I would. The balance of the argument—it is not a clear-cut issue—is against them. I admit the perfect right of any hon. Member to divide the House, but I hope that we can avoid that. If not, we must vote according to our conscientious convictions.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 134.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted that we have come to the Third Reading of the Bill with only the most minor disagreements.
My first task must be to pay a heartfelt tribute to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Environment for his devotion, enthusiasm, ability and dedication to the Bill. I have, of course, been in the closest touch with him during the Committee stage proceedings. However, I do not want to give the impression that his was not a fully independent and creative role. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for the progress made in Committee and the good spirits that prevailed.
I also thank the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for all the

effort he has put into the Bill. I thank him particularly for being here today. I know that he is here at great personal inconvenience, as he cancelled an important late-night engagement in Paris. We all appreciate the sacrifice that he has made.

It would be a tragedy if heritage matters became an issue of party political dispute. In the nature of things there must at some time, I imagine, be a change of Government. This Government cannot be in power all the time, though they are doing very well at the moment and it looks as though we will be here until the end of the century.

Mr. Cormack: Which century?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will settle for the present century at this moment.
It would be disastrous for the heritage if there were not the widest possible measure of bipartisanship, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for


Warley, East for having made such a notable contribution in this sphere. It is rare for an individual to make a great difference. His accession to the position of spokesman for the Opposition has made a major difference to our arts policy, and I pay tribute to him, as I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for his contribution to the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) for his continuing contribution to the arts in the House and outside it which is followed by all those interested in the heritage.
After the detailed consideration the Bill has received in Committee and on Report, I think it would be useful to stand back for a few minutes and set the proposal that it contains in the context of our other policies for the heritage and the arts. The Bill sets up a new fund to be run by independent trustees providing assistance to bodies and institutions that wish to acquire, preserve or maintain outstanding land, buildings and objects of national heritage quality. I have given no sustained consideration to who should be appointed, save in the most general terms, because it would be quite wrong, until I was assured of the approval of the Bill by Parliament, to begin that consideration. When, as I hope, the Bill receives its Third Reading, I shall devote my mind to this matter in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I can make a few general remarks about the sort of people we shall be looking for. We do not want crabbed specialists. We do not want astronomers who have never seen the stars. We do not want bankers who have never seen the world save by looking out of a bank window. We want people of wide experience and cultural perceptiveness and an interest in the whole question of the heritage and the arts. We want people who will be able to assess and take expert advice but who are not necessarily experts.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman said he would consult the Secretary of State for the Environment. Will he also confer with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, when that is appropriate. I am very glad to have them added to the rota.
Second, the Bill transfers ministerial responsibility for acceptance of property in lieu of capital transfer tax from the Treasury to the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself in my capacity as Minister for the arts. I do not think that any one alteration in policy has done more than that to ensure this measure a favourable reception in the arts world. There was widespread dismay at the prospect of the in-lieu proceedings being abandoned. They have been and will be preserved in principle for the foreseeable future. How the actual administration will be carried out will be a matter for review after experience, however.
The Bill now contains a major new concession, introduced at Committee stage with my full approval and support, to provide the means for a very wide-ranging scheme under which the Government can undertake to indemnify lenders of works of art and similar objects when they are loaned for display to other persons, bodies or institutions.

Mr. Faulds: Excellent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that expression of support. I have received expressions of appreciation from a number of people outside the House.
The steps which have been taken in the Bill should be seen in the context of what we are already doing. We already provide the maintenance costs, the capital costs and the purchase grants for the national museums and galleries, and special funds to aid the purchasers in the local museums and galleries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment provides similar support for a number of historic buildings and ancient monuments, and he, of course, is advised by the historic buildings councils.
I am advised by the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. I thank the commission and Sir Arthur Drew for all the help that they have given in the course of the Bill. I especially thank Mr. Michael Levey, the director of the National Gallery, who has taken such a constructive and informed interest in the Bill and in all matters concerning the visual arts.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar responsibilities for the arts and the environmental heritage. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for West Lothian they will be advising and taking decisions where appropriate.
In addition, we control the export of works of art on the advice of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. The committee has an extremely difficult task which it does extremely well and conscientiously. It is a tribute to it that no one has even questioned the bona fides of its decisions, however much he may have disagreed with the decision reached. Professor White is doing a wonderful job in that respect.
In round terms, as a proportion of my arts budget, which also covers the Arts Council, the British Library and a number of other bodies concerned with the living arts, expenditure on heritage is over £40 million out of a £140 million budget. Next year, with the addition of the National Heritage Fund and the provision for acceptance in lieu, the proportion will be significantly higher.
That is a firm demonstration of our commitment to the national heritage and is all the more notable when one considers the steps that we are having to take, unfortunately, to retrench public expenditure generally. I know that the Expenditure Committee report, from which the idea of the new fund sprang, recommended that we should add to its endowment the £50 million that it said was taken away in 1957, but it sensibly said:
as the public expenditure situation permits".
I should be delighted to comply with that recommendation. I am sure that the House will recognise that it is simply not practicable at the present time. I regard it as a major achievement—and I have been supported in this view by the heritage movement—that we have ensured that the total sum standing to the credit of the National Land Fund at the end of this financial year will be handed over to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself, so that we can provide an immediate and reasonable endowment for the new fund and continue the acceptance in lieu system.
I have referred to the heritage movement. It has played a full role in the preparation and the success of the Bill. It has been constructive and helpful from the time when it gave its detailed evidence to the Expenditure Committee until now, and it has collaborated fully with the Government, the Opposition and hon. Members on the Back Benches in ensuring that we have an accurate and comprehensible statute which reflects the wishes of those concerned. The Bill has made swift progress and will need to maintain this to reach the statute book in time for the fund to be set up at the start of the next financial year. I am most anxious to meet that deadline.
I have nothing but praise for the manner in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment handled the debates in Committee. He and the many others who have contributed to the original text and the amendments deserve our congratulations on a great achievement for the national heritage.
Mr. Hugh Leggatt, a great supporter of the arts, said that the Bill constituted the brightest day for the arts and the heritage for more than 30 years.
I wish to thank all those who have contributed.

Mr. Faulds: This is a happy occasion. We see now the realisation—or near realisation, or imminent realisation—of a much-hoped-for development. Out of Hugh Dalton's original concept of stretches of lovely land being preserved, unspoiled, as a memorial to the war dead of the last great war, there developed the extension of concern to historic houses and, eventually, to paintings and objets ďart.
Sadly, the National Land Fund, the original vehicle, was not properly utilised because of Treasury machinations and, let us be honest, by parliamentary parsimony when funds were diverted, quite improperly, to the Treasury for purposes other than those for which the fund had been established.
Mentmore was a national scandal which had the fortunate result of rousing such fury and concern that the whole subject became a matter of public interest and subsequently a matter of examination by Arthur Jones's Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee.
The excellent report that came out of that led to the White Paper of February 1979, produced—and it is advisable that we should remember this—by Lord Donaldson and Lady Birk and strongly backed by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I recount the history yet again just to put the record straight and so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should not get all the kudos. The right hon. Gentleman is a great collector of paraphernalia of all sorts, but he is not averse to picking up whatever kudos lies around.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Nor is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Faulds: I am not quite such a collector of either kudos or bits and pieces as is the right hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, I have another Gladstone bust for him if he can afford it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: How about a Queen Victoria bust?

Mr. Faulds: This is becoming most improper. Queen Victoria's bust is not a matter which should be discussed on the Third Reading of the National Heritage Bill, even though it may lie in the right hon. Gentleman's collection.
Let us be fair to the right hon. Gentleman. He deserves some of the kudos. He was generous to me—rightly so—and I must be generous to him. He has played an admirable role in seeing that matters were got right in Committee and in the final form of the Bill. We should put on record that he was the final contributor, with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who did so excellently in Committee.
However, it is only fair to add that the right hon. Gentleman took the advice that I gave on Second Reading when I instructed him to apply a touch of his delicate toe to a number of bureaucratic bottoms in Whitehall. The result has been a much improved Bill in which the right hon. Gentleman has handsomely met the main requirements of the heritage and museum worlds.
All along, the right hon. Gentleman has supported the in-lieu provisions, which were regrettably left out of the February White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman and I were at one on that. He

has met the in situ suggestions for which the museum world has wished for years and, more admirably—and this is where the toe penetrated the posterior—he has insisted on introducing the indemnity arrangements for which the museum world had also argued for years.
The right hon. Gentleman deserves a good deal of credit, and I should like to put on record again the contribution of the Under-Secretary in Committee. He dealt courteously, good-humouredly and efficiently with a fairly ugly crew.

Mr. Cormack: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Faulds: Of course, I include myself but do not exclude the hon. Member.
Where the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not been so good is in failing to resist the Treasury's baleful influence. I had wanted to speak at length on that matter, but I have rehearesd the arguments a number of times in Committee and on Second Reading, and I understand that there are problems about completing the business of the House satisfactorily tonight, so I shall drop, perhaps ill-advisedly, the animadversions on the Treasury.
However, I should like to raise one or two other matters on which the Minister might like to comment. There is common agreement that, in the nature of things, no accurate advance estimates can be made of the sums required to record in the books acceptances in lieu, since too many unpredictable factors are inevitably involved. In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm to the House that if the estimates are insufficient in any one year the moneys will not be made up by raiding the annual grant of income to the National Heritage Memorial Fund? That matter was touched on earlier, but I should like confirmation when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate. Conversely, will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that any excess of the estimate over the sums made available in respect of in lieu acceptances will be passed to the Fund as an addition to its income?
I have another important query. Now that acceptances in lieu are being placed on a new footing in the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us precisely how he plans to obtain expert advice on


the pre-eminence or otherwise of works of art offered in satisfaction of tax? He will be aware that the old system was not working satisfactorily and that the Select Committee came up with a constructive suggestion for reform. If he has completed consideration of this point, which he informed me was in progress some time ago, will he take this opportunity to impart his conclusions to the House? It is important that the House should know.
This is a most welcome piece of legislation which meets the concern of all the parties to the heritage. It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee with such amenable colleagues. I believe that we have ensured the better conservation of all aspects of our heritage, which now plays such an important part in our economic life and in the cultural lives not only of natives of Britain but of the many tourists who flock in to look at our heritage in all its aspects. I believe that Hugh Dalton's dream has been more than fulfilled. For once the House can be proud of its work and sure of the value of its legislative decision in these matters.

Mr. Cormack: It is a great pleasure to join hands across the Chamber and welcome this significant piece of legislation. I add my congratulations to those that have been given to my right hon. Friend for his drive in carrying major responsibility for this Bill. I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), to whom tributes have already been paid, for a magnificent job in Committee. Without his calm, patient understanding, I do not think that the Bill would be quite the measure that we now have. He considered most carefully a number of important points. He obviously had lengthy discussions with my right hon. Friend, as a result of which improvements ensued.
This is only the beginning of the road in many ways. Although for many of us it is a day of celebration, we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that all the problems of the heritage will pass into oblivion when the Bill reaches the statute book. I said on Second Reading that this is only one strand of a comprehensive heritage policy. Without long-awaited tax concessions and reforms in the Budget

and other proposals to which we all look forward, there will be a flood of heritage objects on to the market with which the fund will be unable to cope. It can be effective only as a safety net. It will survive as a safety net only if it is not tested too often.
I hope that all hon. Members realise that this is just one victory and that our heritage has not been rescued from all the dangers that threaten it merely by the passage of the Bill, welcome as it is. The Bill is, however, a significant milestone. It is the most important piece of heritage legislation since the war. For that, my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and my hon. and learned—and benevolent—Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who played a part this afternoon, have our grateful thanks.
I sincerely hope that their Lordships' House will consider that we have examined the Bill fairly thoroughly and will give it a quick and speedy passage so that it receives the Royal Assent in good time for the trustees to be appointed and the Bill to come into effect on 1 April.

Mr. Dalyell: The Leader of the House paid tribute, properly, to the heritage movement. Having occupied many column inches of the Committee proceedings in the Official Report and having had my say today, I should like simply to say "Thank you" to the many heritage bodies in Scotland that were brought together on the initiative of the National Trust for Scotland and have done a great deal of constructive work on the Bill. They may be a model of how to influence events, particularly as they had the maximum co-operation from the Civil Service. But the heritage bodies helped themselves greatly by letting civil servants and Ministers know exactly what was in their minds at an early stage. The civil servants were extremely co-operative, constructive and helpful.

Mr. Cormack: I have been remiss. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be a great shame if the Bill were passed without the name of Mr. Jeremy Benson being recorded.

Mr. Dalyell: It is always invidious to pick out names. We have had a great deal of help from all sorts of heritage


bodies. I shall not speak of a heritage lobby, because there has been no trace of self-interest on their part. Naturally, one is alert for that.
I say "Thank you" to the bodies concerned, because unless we have available to us the kind of briefings that they provided I am not sure that on such a complex matter the House can be effective.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With permission, I should like to reply briefly to three points.
First, the fund will receive a grant in aid that cannot be raided to provide more for acceptance in lieu.
Secondly, the sources of expert advice for the pre-eminence test that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) raised are under consideration. My officials are discussing the matter with our present expert advisers and the Standing

Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Any excess on the acceptance in lieu provision in any year can be transferred to the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees.
I was extremely glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)paid tribute to the civil servants. We take the help, advice and work of the civil servants for granted, so much so that normally they receive no tributes, although from time to time they receive censure. I should like to put my experience on record. I do not think that on this Bill and other matters I could have received more devoted, intelligent and constructive service than I have had from the Civil Service.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SCHOOL MILK AND MEALS

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Provision of Milk and Meals (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1686), dated 17 December 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 December, be annulled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I understand that it is the wish of the House that we take with this the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk and Meals (Education) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1682), dated 7 December 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 December, be annulled.

Mrs. Taylor: The House should be clear about what we are discussing. The Government may well say that we are discussing a simple increase in charges for school meals. They will probably say that it is a modest increase of only 5p. They will say that it is an increase of a kind that we have had before. They may even mention the economic cost of school meals and say that the increase is justified and that there is no real difference between the present increase and increases in the past.
In fact, that is not so, because the regulations are significantly different from those that have increased the price of school meals previously. It is true that the increases are made in order to raise revenue. The Government take every opportunity to grab what revenue they can and to increase charges. But the regulations simply introduce an interim increase until local authorities can increase the price of school meals further, under the Education (No. 2) Bill. We cannot view the regulations in any other way.
The House should be grateful to the Secretary of State, who is not with us tonight, because in his press release at the time of the announcement of the increase he honestly told us the real reason for the increase. He said on that occasion that the increase would help local authorities to make progress towards achieving the savings next year set out in the Government's White Paper, pending the enactment of the Education (No. 2) Bill.
Therefore I think we cannot separate the regulations that we have before us this evening from the Education (No. 2) Bill, which is now in Committee, where discussion has been curtailed because of the guillotine, so that we cannot discuss the school meals problem properly. We cannot separate these regulations from the Government's general economic policy, such as it is, and we cannot separate these regulations from the other measures which the Government are embarking upon that do harm to ordinary families and make life more difficult for many people in this country.
This increase in the charge for school meals, which comes into operation next week, follows an increase in school meal prices only last September. That increase was one which we Labour Members regretted. But we understood and, indeed, accepted the need for that increase. Indeed, as the Minister no doubt intends to remind the House, that increase was one which we as a Labour Government had acknowledged was necessary and had accepted would take place.
However, that increase in school meal charges last September was the first increase for two years, because the previous Government, the Labour Government, had held the price of school meals steady for two years. The present Government are to introduce another increase in school meal charges just five months after the last one. I doubt whether any Government in the past have had two increases in school meal prices in such a short time.
One reason for this is the quickening pace of inflation under this Government, but there are also other reasons. The Government are obviously taking every opportunity they can both to increase charges and to cut public services. Indeed, the Government are almost proud of their record in making cuts and their record in increasing charges. Part of the problem that the country is facing is that the Government make hasty decisions, such as this one to increase school meal charges, without looking at the facts, without looking at the consequences and without any sense of priorities or any idea of what the country needs.
No doubt the Minister will tell us this evening that charges of this kind are


necessary because he sees the alternative as more classroom cuts. His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has told the House on several occasions that school meals, school milk and school transport must all face new charges because the alternative is other cuts in the education field. Indeed, his noble Friend who speaks for the Government in another place put it very clearly when he said that these cuts were necessary because the alternatives, which included cutting back on classroom supplies and teachers, were even less acceptable to the Government.
The sad fact is that the choice is not one of cuts in school meals or cuts in the classroom. It is a false argument that the Government are putting forward, for two reasons. It is a false argument because even the Government ought to accept that teachers cannot teach hungry or tired children—which is the attitude Government members are coming round to on the Education Bill. It is also a false argument because it is untrue that cuts in school meals at the present time are preventing cuts in the classroom. All over the country we are seeing cuts in the number of teachers that many local authorities are employing, cuts in book supplies and cuts in capitation generally.
The Government's proposal on school meals, these increased charges and the other cuts they are introducing are doing nothing to prevent real education cuts in the classroom, which many Conservative authorities have been making in a frenzy of enjoyment. Now, they will not only continue to cut classroom equipment and teachers, but will cut school meals and milk with relish as well.
The regulations are important. They indicate the future pattern of school meal charges. In the past, school meal prices have been fixed by the Government. Nutritional levels have been laid down by the Government. If the Government have their way, all that will be a thing of the past. We shall have more frequent increases in school meal charges, and they will be substantial increases. That is bound to happen, and the two increases that we have seen in the past five months are merely the first stages of what will happen because of the Government's attitude.
Following the Government's lead, many local authorities are now planning the increases that they will have to make. They are anticipating legislation that the Government are forcing through the House. Families had to face an increase in September 1979. They will have to face a further increase next week, in February. If the Government are successful in pushing their Bill through the House, many parents will face an increase in April, an increase in September and further increases in the following year. By September, many parents will have had four increases in school meal charges within 12 months.
That is not speculation. Many local authorities have already made their decision. There is much evidence that they will charge 45p in April and 50p in September. Some authorities, such as those in Devon and Warwickshire, are even now announcing plans to charge 60p for a school meal. The list of authorities that are making such decisions is endless. They are making these decisions under pressure from the Government to make public expenditure cuts.
The Government do not seem to understand that merely increasing the charge for school meals will not solve their problem. That will not raise the revenue that they are expecting. The Government are forgetting that as charges increase, fewer children will take school meals. As fewer children take school meals, the economic cost per meal will increase. We are entering a vicious circle that will lead to the break-up of the school meals service as we know it.
The Government seem to ignore these considerations. Their aim remains the same. They want parents to have to pay the full economic cost for school meals. That is the Government's intention, but so far Government spokesmen have not had the courage to say so. They have said instead that local authorities will have to make the decisions for them.
There has been much discussion about school meal subsidies, but no Minister has suggested that local authority employees or other workers who receive subsidised meals should have them withdrawn. Many chief executives and many directors of education receive subsidised meals. However, no one on the Government Benches is complaining about that. They are saying that children should not


have their meals subsidised and that we should move towards a system in which parents have to pay the full economic cost.
I wonder how the Government think that ordinary families will be able to cope, especially as the increased charges have to be set against the background of the Government's other actions. It is not only an increase in the price of school meals that families face. The Government are to abolish the supply of milk for infants. They know that that is the reality of their plan. They are forcing local authorities to introduce new transport charges which will hit many family budgets. It may be that Ministers in the Department of Education believe that these new charges do not matter. Perhaps they believe that families can use the glorious tax rebate they received some time ago to enable them to cover these charges. But, for the vast majority of families the tax rebate of which the Government are so proud has been swallowed up many times over. It has been swallowed up by value added tax increases, inflation, increased mortgages, increased rates, the increased television licence fee and increases in the cost of gas, electricity and school transport.
One of my hon. Friends raised an important point yesterday about the Government's attack on families. What the Government are now doing is almost taxing parenthood. The Government's policies hit hard at the pockets of those who can least afford it. The Government must realise that their present financial policies affect mothers in particular.
What a constituent of mine said to me recently must be typical of the thoughts of many mothers throughout the country. She asked me whether it was true that the price of school meals was to be increased again. When I confirmed what the Government were doing, her next question was "Oh, is child benefit going up as well?" The Government may think that that is a very simplistic view, but for many mothers there is a direct relationship between child benefit and the price of school meals because they are the people who have to pay the bill.
The reason for this increase is very clear. The Government intend to make as many cuts as they can as quickly as possible and to increase as many charges

as they can as quickly as possible. These regulations are not simply about increased charges, because many similar regulations in the past have contained provisions for increasing the income levels at which families could claim free school meals. If we look at the regulations, which are extremely brief, we see that there is no provision for that. No doubt the Government will say that part of the reason for that is that they increased the limit last year and, therefore, they do not want to do it again. But if they can increase the price of school meals twice in five months they can look at the income levels at which free school meals can be claimed twice in five months.
Though the Government will not admit it, the real reason why the income levels have not been increased is that the Government are against free school meals, or at least the number who can claim free school meals. The Government are determined to cut down the number of free school meals that are obtained.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend will remember that in the election campaign the Conservatives made great play of trying to reduce the poverty gap. Would she not agree that by deliberately refusing to adjust the means test the Government are deepening the poverty trap and reducing the incentive for people to work?

Mrs. Taylor: The Government are doing exactly that at present. At the time of the election, many people were attracted by the idea that this Government would do something to rationalise that situation. The Conservatives made many promises and gave many indications that that would be their approach. What my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) says is correct, and I am sure that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will wish to develop that point further. The Government are determined to reduce the number of free school meals available to children. On reflection, we should not be surprised that there is no provision in these regulations for the extension of free school meals.
The Secretary of State made his attitude to free school meals quite clear in our debate on the Education (No. 2) Bill, because on that occasion he said:
many children who have free meals flog their vouchers and spend the money in other


ways".—[Official Report, 5 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 47.]
I should be very surprised if the Secretary of State really believed that. He is present, and if he wants to indicate that he has changed his mind I shall be pleased to give way. But a Secretary of State who adopts that type of attitude and assumes that free school meals are used in that kind of way shows a complete lack of understanding of the way in which people claim school meals and the way in which the system works.
It is strange that we should be discussing the order tonight, because hon. Members serving on the Education (No. 2) Bill Committee are also discussing school meals. Although the Committee debate is guillotined, there has been some indication of the attitude of the Under-Secretary of State. He has given some guidelines as to his attitude. He has told us that he believes that school meals and the obligations that at present exist, are an out-of-date duty. He has acknowledged that a few children may suffer from malnutrition as a result of what will happen. But he thinks that somehow we shall get round that and that it will not matter. He has not told us how he will get round it or how it will not matter. We look forward to the Under-Secretary using this opportunity tonight to defend the position that he has taken in Committee as well as the position that the Government have taken overall.
The regulations are short. The Government will present them as a simple increase. But it is important for the House to consider them in their true context in view of the other recent increases that have taken place in school meals and in view of the Government's proposals in regard to school meals under the Education (No. 2) Bill.
The Government's proposals will have a devastating effect on the school meals service and will, therefore, have a devastating effect on education. This measure is the Government's first step in destroying the school meals system. It is an indication of their cavalier and careless attitude towards school meals and education in general. Labour Members will have no hesitation at all in voting against the Government tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The hon. Member for Bolton. West (Mrs. Taylor) has, in her own style, presented her views in a way which she thinks will generate some sincerity. However, there are two aspects of her speech that I should like to deal with at the outset.
Like many of her hon. Friends serving on the Education (No. 2) Bill Committee, which has also debated this subject, the hon. Lady has engaged in purveying speculative gloom and despondency, and I do not believe that it is any part of the duty of a Member of Parliament to convey that sort of message to one's constituents.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) must allow me to develop the opening part of my speech.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished.

Mr. Macfarlane: If the hon. Gentleman expected me to give way, he certainly closed the door completely by that closing aside. I believe that four Front Bench Members wish to speak. In addition, a number of hon. Members are gathering on the Opposition Benches. Therefore, I think that I should be allowed to get on with my speech.
The hon. Lady's reference to free meals was a gross exaggeration. It was the sort of remark to which we have become used during the past 24 sittings of the Committee. There have been exaggerated claims that we are destroying the school meals service and free meals, neither of which is true. The Government have done nothing over the past seven or eight months to destroy the provision of free meals. There is nothing planned in the legislation that will destroy the free school meal service. The House must understand that—[Interruption.] I am glad that I have triggered off a sedentary reaction from Opposition Members. I knew, in particular, that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) would rise to that bait in the same way as he has risen to it for the last three or four months


in Committee. His derisive laughter helps me to conclude that I am striking oil. He knows that he owes a better deal to his constituents than to exaggerate the situation.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman is a fisherman, obviously. He knows that I shall not give way when he rises like that. It would not be in his interest for me to give way to him now.

Mr. Kinnock: Tell us about your constituents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. My constituents are all right.

Mr. Macfarlane: The background to the Government's decision to increase the school meal charge by 5p is well known. However, it is worth repeating for the benefit of Opposition Members, because they appear to show a callous disregard for the true facts.
The White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81", Cmnd. 7746, which was published in November of last year, began with these words:
Public expenditure is at the heart of Britain's present economic difficulties.
Those economic difficulties were perpetrated largely by Opposition Members—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bedwellty has his sense of humour well to the fore, even though he should be contemplating the true facts in greater detail.

Mr. Kinnock: I enjoy farce.

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman purveys it most of the time.
Over recent years, public expenditure has been allowed to increase on assumptions made about the economic growth needed to finance it that have not been borne out. The Government intend that their plans for spending should be compatible with a realistic assessment of the prospects for economic growth. Also, they intend that the plans should be compatible with the objectives of increasing incentives through reduced taxation—which has taken place—and controlling public sector borrowing, which has started. The overwhelming need for 1979–80 and 1980–81 was to reduce the

unrealistic growth in public expenditure contained in the previous Administration's plans.
What of education expenditure? On several occasions, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have said that spending on education services could not be exempt from that process. However, because of the importance for the future of doing all that is possible to maintain the standard of education, my right hon. and learned Friend believed that the bulk of the reductions should come from the ancillary services of providing school meals, milk and transport. I remind all hon. Members that expenditure on those items costs about £530 million—almost 7 per cent. of the cost of the education service as a whole. Both local authority associations, the ACC and the AMA, expressed their support for the strategy. Indeed, the ACC urged upon the Government in July the need to relax a number of statutory duties, of which the inflexible requirements relating to the provision of school meals was one.
I turn to the school meal charge. We propose that expenditure on school meals, in particular, should be halved in 1980–81. Both local authority associations said that they would help their members to achieve the required reductions if we increased the school meal charge this term. They argued that small regular increases are less disruptive of the service than are large irregular ones. My right hon. and learned Friend—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—accepted that argument. Furthermore, a continuing high level of income from pupils who pay for the school meal is essential if a viable service is to be maintained. The effect of the increase in the charge on the number of paying pupils has to be carefully judged.
The evidence of the past two increases in the charge supports those views. There was a 5p increase last term from 25p, which had no effect when compared with one year earlier on the proportion of pupils at school who paid for a school meal. It was about 52 per cent. at the time of each October census. However, there was a small increase in the proportion of primary school pupils paying for a meal, from 61 per cent. to 63 per cent., and a small decrease among secondary school pupils paying for a meal from 42 per cent. back to 41 per cent.
By contrast, the two-thirds increase in the charge introduced by the Labour Administration in the summer of 1977 from 15p to 25p resulted in a drop in the proportion of pupils who were paying for a meal from 60 per cent. in October 1976, to 50 per cent.—a drop of 10 per cent.—in October 1977.
In 1978–79, the income from paying pupils amounted to about £200 million, or about one-third of the gross expenditure on the service. In that year, a daily average of 4 million children were paying 25p for a meal which cost 54p to produce. One million children were getting the meal free, as were 500,000 adults under their general terms of service.
But it is clear from the figures for unit costs in 1978–79 that local education authorities already apply different priorities, even when subject to national standards and national charging policies. Although the average cost of producing the meal was 54p, it varied among individual local education authorities from 44p to 65p. Although, on average, 29p of the 54p went on wages of catering staff and midday supervisory assistants, some authorities had been able to hold those costs down to about 23p. Similar variations were apparent in the amounts spent on food and on other overheads.
I turn to some aspects of future arrangements, which are all-important in view of the—

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Macfarlane: I should hate to spoil a good relationship, so I shall show some typical Celtic generosity and give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kinnock: Before the Minister moves on from this point, will he answer the point raised by my hon. Friend as to why, in the case of these regulations, there is no new provision for income limits so that there is a guarantee against poor people suffering as a consequence of this rise?

Mr. Macfarlane: That guarantee is included in clauses 22 and 23 of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the supplementary benefit and family income supplement considerations, and local education authorities understand the discretionary arrangements which they have to make for the disadvantaged. That point will be well preserved.
I turn now to future arrangements. It will be for each local education authority to make its own decisions about the school meals service it wants to provide, including the charging policy, under the powers that we propose to give the authorities. Although it will be for each local education authority to decide its own priorities in the light of its own circumstances, the Government's policy of safeguarding educational standards is well known to all authorities. [Interruption.]
Once again, I can understand by the derisive jeers from the Opposition Benches that Labour Members acknowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend has made a series of speeches up and down the country in the past four months underlining the importance that the Government attach to the core curriculum and to the secondary survey, and the way in which the Government will concentrate on educational standards. That was not done under the previous Labour Administration.
The indication given by the Government of where economies should be made is clear beyond doubt. Labour Members must begin to understand that. We expect expenditure on the school meals service to be halved. Two important elements in achieving that are less expensive meals and a lower average subsidy to the paying pupil.
On the information so far available, authorities are planning to maintain a traditional midday meal for primary pupils, and many will continue to give a substantial, though reduced, subsidy. With 75 per cent. of primary pupils at present taking the school meal and 63 per cent. paying for it, that would be a reasonable policy for authorities to adopt. By contrast, only 40 per cent. of secondary pupils are paying for a meal—in some authorities it is less than 20 per cent.—which suggests that for many children the traditional meal is not what they want.
Most local education authorities—[Interrruption.] It is depressing that hon. Gentlemen find it so easy to laugh.

Mr. Kinnock: It is nonsense.

Mr. Macfarlane: It is nonsense when quite clearly the Shadow spokesman for education is not au fait with what is happening in secondary schools. It has


been the trend of the past 10 or 12 years, and the hon. Member for Bedwellty should understand that.
Most local education authorities are therefore planning to provide cafeteria-type meals, with items individually priced and the choice of items being not only what nutritionists think is good for children but also what the children prefer. Many authorities have been experimenting with such provisions under present legislation.
They find a number of advantages. First, there is less waste because children choose only what they want to eat. Secondly, there is more customer satisfaction, demonstrated by the considerable increase in the number of children staying for a meal. Thirdly, there is better control of the children. Many head teachers prefer to have the children on the premises rather than have them going outside. Fourthly, there is more job satisfaction. The children's interest in the food encourages the kitchen staff. Finally, overall reduction in net expenditure results in increased taking, which means increased income. Those are positive advantages that authorities have found from experiments over the past few years. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen visit the regions in Scotland and the LEAs in this country to find out what is happening.
All those factors suggest that authorities generally are approaching their task in a responsible manner. From comments made, I can only assume that hon. Gentlemen have no confidence in their regional or local authorities and the role of local government.
It is therefore right for the Government to facilitate the transition to a less expensive service in 1980–81. Even though the local education authority's role in assisting parents by providing a school meals service must be secondary to its main task of educating the children—and it must surely be accepted that it is primarily the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are adequately fed—authorities are clearly intending to maintain a service that provides what children want at a price that parents are prepared and can afford to pay.
The general conclusion to be drawn from these points is that, given the need to curb public expenditure, the Govern-

ment are right to seek to relax the out-of-date and rigid controls over what local education authorities provide as a school meals service. We also have our priorities right in identifying the school meals service as one in which there is scope for achieving a substantial reduction in net expenditure.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I shall not give way, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
It is right that the Government should do what they can to assist local education authorities to achieve the required reductions, in particular by raising the charge for school meals by 5p this term.
I therefore suggest that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches would do well to read the legislation more closely and work out what lies in store. I invite my hon. Friends to reject the motion.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I shall be brief, as a number of hon. Members wish to voice their utter dismay at this mean and contemptible action. The Minister has said that the charge for school meals was being increased to help solve our economic difficulties. That is the baldest statement that I have heard from any Minister. Perhaps he will reconsider it when he studies the Official Report tomorrow.
It is true that the previous Government increased prices, but that must be compared with the present increases in VAT, the 30 per cent. increase in gas prices and substantial rent and rate increases, which will especially affect the poorer sections of our community. There are many other increases that will result from this Government's policies. It is galling that the Government should further burden the poorer sections of our community with this mean and contemptible charge.
The Minister repeats the point that free school meals are sacrosanct, but, from reading the regulations and the briefing that he no doubt has from his advisers, he should know that that is not true. The truth is that local authorities will be allowed to make their own charges. In Scotland there are one or two rather mean, Conservative-controlled


authorities. Such authorities can raise the price of school meals beyond 50p or 70p a day after tonight. The Minister has repeatedly said that responsibility and freedom is being given to local authorities. He now has an opportunity to deny that.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Tonight we are debating a proposal to raise the price of school meals from 30p to 35p. That is the maximum charge that any authority can make. The question of any future freedom depends on whether the Education (No. 2) Bill is enacted. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is totally wrong to say that, as from tomorrow, local authorities will be able to charge what they wish.

Mr. McElhone: When the Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State will have to rethink his words. I have a copy of a circular that was sent by the Secretary of State for Scotland to local authorities on 2 October 1979. I shall quote from that circular to Scottish local authorities in order to help the Secretary of State for Education. Paragraph 5 says:
Under the present regulations education authorities are required to provide meals free of charge for children from low income families.
That refers to children who receive free school meals. The Minister said that they were not at risk. It continues:
In line with the Government's policy of allowing greater discretion to local authorities, the intention is to let education authorities decide entirely for themselves".
That has stated the case clearly. The circular comes straight from the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It goes on:
decide entirely for themselves what provision should be made in future for children from low income families".
It will not depend on the Secretary of State and his colleagues. That circular has already gone out to Scottish local authorities. Again:
The legislation wil seek to give authorities who decide to make provision for children from low income families a variety of options".
Looking at some Scottish local authorities, we know what that means.
I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor). However, I heard her remark about vouchers,

and it was a valid point. I therefore ask the Minister to repudiate the actions of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I invite him to rethink the advice that he gave me earlier.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The hon. Gentleman must understand that his point has nothing to do with tonight's regulations. He may have a perfectly good point, but it is relevant to a debate on the Education (No. 2) Bill. With respect, it has nothing to do with tonight's regulations.

Mr. McElhone: I made that point when I quoted from the circular. The Secretary of State has not listened to the comments that are made in his own circular. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that we shall have only a 5p increase? Perhaps the Minister will confirm that it is only 5p—however iniquitous that 5p may be—and that there will not be any more impositions upon the poorer sections of our community.
The Secretary of State is tackling a serious social issue. This charge will endanger the social fabric of our community. The Secretary of State for Education and Science must understand that. I do not wish to be too personal, but perhaps his background and the area that he represents do not reflect the problems that those of us who represent city centres experience in our advice surgeries.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has already received warnings from his colleagues. One of those warnings was prophetic. The hon. Member for North Angus and Meatus (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke in Perth in 1978 and indicated the type of legislation that we would receive from his Government. The hon. Member is now the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I shall quote what he said at a Tory conference in Scotland. Although he was talking about militants on the Left, he gave a warning to the Prime Minister when he said:
On the other hand, the Conservative Party is showing a tendency to react to extremism of another sort, probably most apparent in economic policy.
When I read that in the Glasgow Herald on 15 May 1978, I was sceptical that even the Tory Party would bring such legislation forward so early in the life of the Government.
Those of us who have had some experience in the Scottish Office realise that almost 500,000 Scottish children take school dinners and 150,000 of them get free dinners. We still believe that there is a serious threat to free school meals as we know them. The Minister should rethink the position, or the reaction that will come from the Scottish constituencies will be one of extreme anger. I repeat that this is a mean and contemptible action for any Government to take.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Life would be much simpler if all we had before us was these regulations or a single clause in a simple education Bill that gave local authorities a little more flexibility in the organisation of school meals and the charging of individual children for them. There are some general principles on which I am in agreement with the Government, and they affect my attitude to the regulations. That is rather different from my attitude the Education (No. 2) Bill.
In present circumstances we cannot expect school meal subsidies to command as large a share of the education budget as they do now, keen though I am on the school meals service. I believe that people who can afford to pay for school meals should be doing so, and I believe fervently—and the Government are supposed to believe this, too, but there is very little evidence of it—that we must so organise our provision of benefits, such as free school meals and school transport, as to do away with the poverty trap. We must end the situation in which people are better off out of work than in work and better off not doing overtime than doing it. The Government are trying to apply the first two principles in the regulations. However, they are abandoning the third principle in just about everything they are doing in the area of school meals.
If we are to achieve the various objectives that I have just mentioned and at the same time retain the fundamentals of a school meals service of proven worth and recognised high standards which we damage at our peril, there are certain things that we must do.
We must give local authorities more flexibility on charging. That is why I cannot, in conscience, oppose their having

the opportunity to make a 5p increase in school meal prices. To deny them that measure of freedom is to make impossible all the other things that we should be doing about the service. It follows from that that we must also try to make more flexible and sensitive provision of aid for parents whose children need school meals but cannot afford them.
That is the exact opposite of what the Government want to do in their Bill, because in that measure they draw the stockade more narrowly around the statutory poor, reduce the numbers of people receiving benefits, and give them the total benefit of free school meals if, and only if, it can be shown that those children do not get enough to eat. If there were more Members in the House tonight who were not serving on the Education (No. 2) Bill Committee, it might have been instructive for them to have heard a few things about the Government's intentions. However, this is not the right occasion for it. Suffice it to say that the basis of the Government's proposals on free school meals is to provide them for children on supplementary benefit and family income supplement. Therefore, the local authority must satisfy itself on what those children had for breakfast and what they are having for tea. If they are not getting enough food, the local authority has a statutory obligation to provide them with a free school dinner.
However, those who are just outside that net do not get these benefits and do not even get the advantage of the local authority inspecting their breakfast and tea menus in order to see whether they need some kind of midday provision. The Government need to make a much more intelligent provision and give some really serious thought to the matter.
I stress the fundamental importance of ensuring that parents on the line between supplementary benefit and family income supplement and low working wages should not be penalised for working and putting in extra effort. That will happen if school meal prices are increased and present free school meals scales are not revised. It will happen if we forget to tie up social benefits and taxes. It will happen as a result of their Education (No. 2) Bill.
I believe that local authorities should have that measure of flexibility which


enables them to charge separately for individual items and to charge slightly more for school meals than they do now. The local authorities should be encouraged to continue a general school meals service but not to divide their pupils into the small company of those who have free provision and the remainder for whom they exercise no responsibility at all.
It would be inconsistent with that belief for me to vote tonight against allowing a 5p increase on the price of school meals. That provision is the only one in the whole range of the Government's proposals on school meals that I can conceivably support. I believe that the remainder of the Government's proposals will not achieve the objectives they have set themselves. They are liable to cause the most serious difficuties for those who have to carry out those proposals in our schools.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: One can hardly dispute that the proposed schools meals price increase is a very modest one and is probably one to which very few people will take exception, given that costs must go up. However, that is not really the subject of tonight's debate. This debate is taking place against the background of a debate on the floor above this Chamber.
It was on that basis that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) made her opening comments. I heard most of them though not all, but in any case I have heard them before. Hon. Gentlemen have subsequently referred to the passage of the Bill we are now considering in Committee.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the prime object of the Bill was to restore to local authorities more control over the decisions that affect their education budget. Even as a new Member of this House, I feel qualified to talk about the pressures on local authorities over the last few years. I speak not only of Conservative-controlled authorities but of all local authorities.
Local authorities of every political persuasion have consistently campaigned, under successive Governments, for relief from some of the statutory requirements that have been added to other longstanding statutory requirements so that

they might better cope with Government demands for reductions in expenditure.
Educational expenditure, however, is not sacrosanct, and as a former finance committee chairman, knowing the size of the education budget in my own local authorities, I know that those authorities could not conceivably hope to meet Government targets without revising education estimates. Because of what I call the statutory overload on local authorities, more and more they must look at, and attack, some of the basics of the fabric of education that we all believe should be preserved.
The local authority association which I had the honour and privilege of leading for some time, together with our sister organisation from the counties, made strong pleas to Mrs. Shirley Williams when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, as local authority associations have done to the present Secretary of State in order to see that some of this statutory burden may be lifted off the local authorities. That is what the Bill intends. One cannot doubt that with £400 million or so involved, which is the cost of the school meals service, many people, faced with unpalatable alternatives, would prefer to see the extremely expensive umbrella that the service has become removed in order to allow local education authorities to preserve other more important parts of the education fabric.
The object of the exercise is to enable local education authorities to review their total budgets, and in that review they must turn first to ancillary services. School meals have over the years played an important part in education, but to hear Labour Members talk about the Education (No. 2) Bill one would think that the school meals service is to be completely abandoned. We are talking not about abandoning it but of giving the LEAs the opportunity to impose realistic charges. The measure before us is a step towards that end.
This debate is not taking place in isolation. It must be seen against a background of what is being said elsewhere. I make no apologies for reiterating the point upon which I started—that is, the paramount need for LEAs to take advantage of the opportunities presented


by the Bill to help them lower their costs. Only in that way will they be able to preserve the basic fabric of education.
The people voted overwhelmingly at the election for reductions in public expenditure. In providing for those reductions we have to recognise that on school meals the local authorities are in the best position to decide what is right for their areas. We are saying only that they should be allowed to do that and that they should not have this prescription put upon them by statute.

Mr. Frank Field: I want to pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) that we cannot discuss the regulations in isolation. He was right. We need to consider what is happening elsewhere, not just in terms of the Education (No. 2) Bill but also of the Government's policies for the family. We have to see this measure as just one part of an attack on families, both rich and poor. One can see how families have suffered in the past 20 years or so in a number of ways, but I want to concentrate on how they have lost out as the tax burdens have increased.
Any candidate in the last election will need no reminding that one of the moans from electors of all political views was about the increasing tax burden. That burden was not shared evenly. It moved in two ways. It moved against the poor, although that may not be of particular interest to the Conservatives. More important for tonight's debate, it moved against families with children, whether those families were rich or poor. That trend continued over a 15 to 20-year period under Governments of both parties.
One would have thought that when at last we had a Government who cut tax, those who had paid a disproportionate increase in the burden of taxation would benefit most. What were the facts of the last Budget? It was a record tax-cutting Budget. Over £4·5 billion was cut from taxation, but only £8 million of that—an almost insignificant sum—went to families with children.
If families had received their fair share of the tax cuts—through increases in child benefit because the child tax allowance was abolished—the child benefit would be £8 per child, and there

would not have been murmurs from the Labour Benches about raising the price of school dinners to what Conservative Members consider to be an economic price.
We are objecting because it was families who disproportionately paid the increase in tax burden and lost out totally when the tax cuts came. To help finance those tax cuts, we are seeing a cutback in public services that affect families. That is the first reason why we shall be opposing the regulations that were gently presented by the Minister as a small increase of 5p. That is 5p on top of other increases and against the background of a Budget that ruthlessly discriminated against those with children, whether those families were rich or poor. It is of as much concern to Conservative Members as to Labour Members that rich and poor families lost out in that deal.
There are two other powerful reasons why the regulations should be opposed. If we examine the incomes of those with children, we see a significant increase in those who earn their poverty. The only data available on a comparative basis is for the period 1974 to 1977. The number of those who brought home poverty wage packets almost doubled in that period from 240,000 to 460,000. The numbers on supplementary benefit also doubled.
Of special importance to the regulations, and even more important when the Education (No. 2) Bill becomes an Act, are the numbers above that line—the notch group—who are outside the reach of FIS and supplementary benefits. That number doubled also. They are least able to afford to pay even 5p per week, let alone 5p per child per day, as the increased cost of school dinners. That links with the third reason why the increase should be opposed by Members on both sides of the House. It links into the effect on the poverty trap. It feeds into the argument that I understand is being conducted on the Education (No. 2) Bill upstairs.
The regulations would increase the price of school dinners. The Education (No. 2) Bill would increase massively the poverty trap. There are a number of eligibility limits. There is the supplementary benefit level, above that there is the FIS level, and way above that is


the present level for eligibility for free school dinners. The Bill would concertina the eligibility limits. When a family loses eligibility for FIS, it also loses other benefits, including the right to free school dinners. Every price increase would make the poverty trap deeper because it is 5p per day, per child, magified over a week.
When the Bill becomes an Act, many low income families will face a marginal rate of tax in excess of 250 per cent. The Government told us of the incentive problems for high earners with an intolerable marginal tax rate of 83 per cent. that had to be reduced to 60 per cent. We opposed it but understood the reasons why it was done. However, it made the poverty trap that much more worse for those who earn their poverty.
The Government tell people to respond to incentives, but, knowingly or not, they have cemented a ceiling over the heads of the poor, making it almost impossible for them to escape from poverty by their own efforts or to respond to the Government's pronouncements about the importance of families improving their lot.
There are three powerful reasons for opposing the regulations. The first is that the Government, like others before them, have singled out for rough treatment those with children. The Conservatives claim to be the party of the family, and we know how crucial the family is to a free society.
The second reason is that the number of those just above the eligibility limits for family income supplement and supplementary benefit has increased significantly over the past few years. That leads on to the third reason because it will make the poverty trap that much more severe when the Education (No. 2) Bill becomes law.

Mr. John Townend: There has been a lot of hot air about nothing over the increased charges, though I grant Labour Members that it is sincere hot air.
At a time of rising energy and food costs and rising wages, an increase of 5p cannot be regarded as excessive. It is only about 16 per cent. and, set against the average current level of wage increases, it is not unreasonable.
However, I agree to a certain extent with the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about the dangers of the poverty trap, but we cannot deal with that by refraining from making any increases in charges for services to the public, the vast majority of whom can afford those charges.
There are three aspects of dealing with the poverty trap. I do not suppose that they will be wholly supported by Labour Members. First, we must continue the process started in the Budget of taking more people at the bottom end of the income range out of the tax net.
Secondly, we must start to tax short-term social security payments.

Mr. Field: Of course it is important to raise tax thresholds, but that can be done effectively for families with children only by increasing child benefits. There was no increase in last year's Budget.

Mr. Townend: When talking of the poverty trap, we are dealing with the difference between those who are working and those who are not.
The other way of dealing with the poverty trap is to stop the automatic indexation of social security benefits. When workers in private industry or nationalised industries are suffering the cruel winds of the current depression and the increase in oil prices and their companies, whether private or, for example, the British Steel Corporation, are telling them that they must accept wage increases of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., or even no wage increase because the money is not there, it is unacceptable that those who are not working should be granted a l7½ per cent. increase in short-term social security benefits.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that one of the great worries of society in recent years has been the lack of parental responsibility. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) dealt with that at length in Committee today and he pointed out that the school meals service had taken the place of much of what parents ought to do.
Most of us would accept that the first responsibility of any parent is to see that a child is clothed, fed and given a good home. It seems not unreasonable that people who can afford it—the vast


majority—should be asked to pay for the feeding of their own children. Even after this modest increase, school meals will still be substantially subsidised by the rest of the population.
I have had very few letters of complaint from constituents about the proposed changes in school meal charges and about the giving back to local authorities of the power to fix the level. The population accept that the feeding of their children is their responsibility. I have had 20 times as many letters on the question of school transport. For some unknown reason, parents seem to expect school transport to be highly subsidised but do not expect school meals to be subsidised.
It has tended to be overlooked that local authorities need this money at this time if they are to stay within their cash limits and meet the Government's guidelines. It is all very well the hon. Member for Bedwellty laughing. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the difficulty that local authorities have in remaining within cash limits this year is very much the responsibility of the previous Government. Their incomes policy, for what it was, was destroyed in a welter of industrial disputes last winter. It is the wage increases in the local authority sector that have continued to be fuelled throughout this year by the infamous Professor Clegg that have put such a strain on local authorities.
Local authority associations—certainly my authority in Humberside—have requested the Government to allow them to increase the price of school meals at this time. I submit that it is far better to have relatively small rises at frequent intervals than to keep putting off grasping the nettle, like the previous Government, who then had to raise the price of school meals at one go by 10p.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that from now on this Government will not have the guts to grasp the nettle? They are giving so-called freedom to local authorities without giving them the means of exercising that freedom because of the cuts that are being imposed. If the hon. Gentleman understands that, he should join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Townend: I have listened to the hon. Member for Bedwellty over the last

few weeks for more hours than I care to remember, and I would have thought it was clear that the Government have grasped the greatest nettle by giving this power back to local authorities. It is a load of nonsense, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to say that the cuts will stop local authorities from exercising the power. The local authorities, if they wish, and if they think that they can use their resources better in the classroom, will be able to put up the price of school meals even higher. It will be their decision. I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can claim that the Government have refused to grasp the nettle.
This increase is justified. It is important to reduce subsidies, wherever possible, to bring the economy under control. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides are anxious to see the level of interest rates reduced. Those levels will be reduced only if public sector borrowing is brought under control, which means reducing public expenditure.

Mr. Norman Buchan: We have heard some extraordinary speeches from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) seeks to cure the poverty trap by increasing poverty. That was what he advocated with every word.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchan: Yes. We must see whether someone on the Government Benches has any sense.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is known to be very concerned about these matters and who was very fair. I do not want to make a party political point, but did not that hon. Member make clear that the numbers of people on supplementary benefit and family income supplement had doubled during the period of the previous Government?

Mr. Buchan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman expects me to blush about that. The more we look at truth and this Government's abysmal behaviour, coming on top of the implied criticism, the better we shall be at securing the answers. Of course, my hon.


Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was correct in saying that, as he was correct in saying that the crucial question was the large numbers of people coming immediately on top of that level.
I have referred to the hon. Member for Bridlington, who sought to cure the poverty trap by increasing poverty. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) advanced the extraordinary proposition in favour of an increase in the charge for school meals that it was the only way to obtain money to preserve the fabric of education—that it was better than cutting direct education facilities. That hon. Gentleman was a pilot. It is rather like the pilot's telling the passengers when he runs them aground "It is better to be running aground than sinking you."
There is another way of providing money for education, if authorities are constricted by the cash limits. That is to increase the cash limits. There is an alternative to increasing the price of the school meals. That is to bring in a supplementary rate support grant if necessary.

Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchan: I shall, I think for the last time.

Mr. Speaker: May I appeal to the House. Interventions will stop someone from being called. A large number of hon. Members still want to speak in the debate.

Mr. Buchan: I was overcome by my usual generosity, Mr. Speaker, as you were when you called me after I had waited an hour.
The argument that I have just described is nonsensical. The truth is that the increase in the price of school meals has nothing to do with providing money for education facilities, because they can be paid for in other ways if the Government are prepared to pay for them. Nor is it much to do with the Under-Secretary's statement that halving expenditure on school meals does not destroy the school meals service. He said that we must restrict public spending to a level compatible with increasing growth and providing incentives.
Has the Government's policy succeeded in increasing growth? Has it given any evidence of increasing incentives? Every economic indicator has become worse since the Government took office. Virtually every action by the Government is increasing our economic problems. None of the Government's actions has resulted in increasing incentives. The one opportunity of increasing incentives through their tax cuts—because they went only to the rich—was for increased investment in this country. But then the Government scrapped exchange controls. What madness this Government are embarked upon!
Those are the reasons for raising the price of school dinners. It is not because people voted for cuts in public expenditure. They voted for cuts in taxes. The average earner is in fact paying more in taxes under this Government than he was paying before, because increased value added tax results in increased payments for various products. Not only are we seeing the destruction of the services, but we are seeing it for a tawdry political purpose—winning an election and giving hand-outs to the rich.
If the Government want to know where money can come from to pay for that, I shall tell them. We have heard talk tonight about the need to cut public expenditure and thus reduce taxes to give incentives. Defense expenditure is now running at £8,000 million a year. I shall tell the House the contribution made by a family of four on average earnings. An average earner with four in the family is paying £12 per family per week—and the Government talk about the need to cut taxes. The people of this country are indeed heavily taxed for this—not to solve the problem of poverty, not to save and improve our education service—and the result is that the Government have carved their way into every one of our social services.
Do not the Government understand the importance of school meals? When I was a teacher, we used—and I hope this continues—the school dinner period—and we got a very large number of children coming to meals at that time—for other things. I did five days a week of extra-mural work. I ran a music club, teaching children music and songs, and so did the other teachers. It was a valuable part of the children's education.
But what happens when we get on to the Yorkie and crisps concept? If kids are going to buy at a snack bar, they would much rather go outside the school. So the kids drift, and that is when they get into difficulties and trouble. Yet the Conservatives are the people who talk about delinquency and law and order. They are the party that claims to speak for the family—a family of four paying £12 a week on defence expenditure; a family of four paying an additional 5p per head per day on school meals.
We are told that it is a small amount, that it is only—that was the word used—a 16 per cent. increase. But the price of the meals went up in September, and since September, putting the two increases together, it has gone up by 40 per cent. Who says that is a trivial increase?
The people who claim to represent working-class areas like Bridlington and Garston had better learn how the people of this country live, they had better give them a bit more credit for proper understanding and they had better reverse their policies smartly before they destroy the very fabric of many of the social services.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) told the truth when, at the end of some six and a half hours of debate on school meals—and we have come here today to make it about nine hours—he said that it was impossible to discuss this increase in isolation; and of course it is. The regulations say:
These regulations shall come into operation on 4th February 1980.
The Bill, which we have been discussing for some 80 to 90 hours now, says on school meals and transport, in clause 22 (3):
A local education authority—
(a) may make such charges as they think fit for anything provided by them.
Therefore, it is impossible to isolate the 5p on 4 February from the reality of the situation. A Bill has been rushed through with indecent haste, to the extent that the Minister gabbled through his set speech at such a speed that we could hardly understand what he was saying. We understood what he was saying, of course, but that is exactly what has hap-

pened with the Bill; it has been rushed through at great speed, and this 5p is only the tip of the iceberg.
My hon. Friends have pointed out that, in the midst of this increase in prices, the Government have offered the steel workers 2 per cent. when a 40 per cent. increase has gone on meals. What an insult and a provocation that is. These are the realities. The 5p on meals which we are debating now cannot be isolated from the fact that there are nearly 1½ million unemployed. The Conservative Party will make it 2 million. Prices are rocketing, the Government are trying to hold wages down, and we are asking people who cannot afford it to pay another 5p on school meals as a prelude to paying whatever any local authority asks them to pay when the Bill goes through in time for the next financial year. The Government are rushing the Bill through, in order to get the money in, so that 5p will only just be being paid when people will immediately have to pay more for meals without the same nutritional value as the meals which the children have been getting so far.
As I said this morning in a speech on the same topic, there is an appalling lack of understanding on the part of the Conservative Party. It does not understand precisely what it is doing. It does not understand that it cannot continue to provoke working people without a major kick-back. If the Government were trying cold-bloodedly to plot the ruin of the British economy, they could not do it more brilliantly. The charitable way of describing the increase of 5p is to say that the Government are innocent and do not know what they are doing. The real way—possibly the uncharitable way—is to say that they know exactly what they are doing and that they are trying to mulct those who cannot afford to pay out more money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that an additional 3 per cent. on the defence bill will amount to about £12 per week per family.

Mr. Buchan: No. An additional 3 per cent. would make matters even worse. I said that a family of four on average earnings pays about £12 a week in tax for the total defence budget. That is in value added tax and direct tax.

Mr. Flannery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The reality is that we are talking about another £250 million on the defence bill. It is laughingly called defence. Are the Russians about to attack us overnight?

Mr. John Townend: What about Afghanistan?

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had better get under their beds. When is it coming? Is it coming next Tuesday afternoon? Let us not lose sight of reality. The Americans have it all.
The extra 3 per cent. will mean £250 million. We are told that the Exchequer is poverty-stricken. However, in the Education (No. 2) Bill another £60 million is to be provided for private schools. Where is the poverty?
We are talking about increasing the school meal charge by 5p when £250 million is to be directed to increased defence spending and £50 million or £60 million is to be spent additionally on private schools. Those are the schools of Conservatives. That is where all the children of Conservatives will go while our children will take all the cuts. That is the reality. The Government will try to cream off some of our children and charge those who are left as much as they can in addition to the 5p increase. These are the realities. The Government must think that we are daft and that we will not fight back.
Statutory school meals have been provided since 1944, and before. Now, their provision is in grave doubt. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said that the extra 5p is not an isolated increase. As she said, it is a full-scale assault on the entire meals service. It is the tip of the iceberg. Following the increase, the Government will wade into us and our children. At the same time they will utter pious platitudes about trying to increase the standard of education. They think that we do not realise that the black paperites are trying to carve education into pieces as fast as they can go.
Implicit in the Education (No. 2) Bill is the decision whether to provide school meals. Many local authorities do not want to provide meals. Likewise, there are many Tory-controlled authorities that

do not want to provide housing. Authorities will increase the school meal charge by 5p and at the same time they will be able to implement their own nutritional standards. They will be able to lower the standard of the meals that our children receive. Many of our children will go to school without breakfast.
Many of my hon. Friends are ex-teachers. There are some on the Conservative Benches. They know, as does any practising teacher, the condition of a child who comes to school in the morning having had no food. They know that it is even more difficult to teach such a child when there is no milk in the morning. These are the realities of teaching. If the ex-teachers on the Conservative Benches are not aware of the realities, they should learn about teaching.
The extra 5p will be levied and subsequently authorities will be able to charge whatever they like. The 5p increase is the beginning. The increases will not stop until the charge for a school meal is about 70p. That will happen within the year. That is the reality of snack meals. Children in the towns will be put on the streets during dinner time. This is a major social change that will have far-reaching consequences.
It is said that many letters have been received about school transport but only a few about meals. It is not understood that parents do not know exactly what is to happen to school meals as a result of the Bill. When they realise what they will have to pay, especially when there are three or four children going to school, the kick-back will rapidly put a Labour Government back in power. Let no one make any mistake about that. As I said this morning, the Tory Party is like Scrooge without the last redeeming chapter. They just do not understand.
The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), who got in because he had the initial 'R'and was confused with our R. Atkins, makes a practice of never making a speech in the House. He merely makes rude rejoinders. He is welcome to do that. It shows him up and not me.
The reality is that we shall have hungry children in our schools who are unable to be taught properly because in many cases they will have had no breakfast and there will be no milk in the middle of the morning.
The increase in the price of meals is opposed by most teachers, who also oppose the Education (No. 2) Bill. Every teachers' organisation and every voluntary organisation opposes what the Government are doing.
In conclusion, may I say that the 5p increase was not opposed, I am sad to say, by the Liberal Bench. That is unfortunate, because one Liberal Member has fought valiantly all the way through on the subject of meals. Every speech made by him was directly in line with our thoughts. Yet he failed to see that the 5p increase was directly linked with the Bill. We should all go into the Lobby and oppose the 5p increase knowing that at the same time we are consciously opposing the Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said that he had spent some hours in Committee upstairs listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). My only regret is that he learnt nothing during that period. If he had been listening closely, he would have learnt something. The hon. Member has a curious mentality. He dismisses the 16 per cent. increase in the cost of school meals as a mere triviality, yet he complains bitterly if workers ask for a 6 per cent. increase in wages. That is the psychology—costs must rise right across the board for working people, but they must not ask for any increase in pay.
We have already seen an increase of 40 per cent. as a result of the additional charges on school meals. What we have not had from the Government tonight is a reason for bringing this statutory instrument before us. I listened carefully to the Minister's tired apologia. His speech reminded me of what my old friend and mentor, Willie Ross, said about the speech by a former Minister. He said that there were three things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's speech: first, he read every word of it; secondly, he read it very badly; and, thirdly, it was not worth reading in the first place. We have had nothing whatever from the Government, apart from the old cliche about the state of the economy.
What puzzles me as someone who is not a member of the Committee discuss-

ing the Education (No. 2) Bill is that we have been told that one of the purposes of that Bill is to allow local authorities more freedom and flexibility. Why could not the Government have waited until that Bill was passed? That would have allowed local authorities to take care of the matter themselves.
The Government have a curious split personality. On the one hand, they flourish the Bill and say "We are giving local authorities freedom, though we know that that is nonsense because we are not giving them any money." On the other hand, having imposed the guillotine motion and guaranteed that the Bill will go through, the Government bring these regulations before us. They say that it is only 5p on a meal, but it is 5p per day per child and it represents an increase of 16 per cent. Why could not the Government wait until the Bill was through before bringing this forward?
The Government have not increased the income level at which people can receive free school meals for their children. This Government are so obsessed with monetarism and cash that they totally neglect the effects that their policies will have upon our children. These continual increases in school meal charges—we have already had two and there are many more in the pipeline—will drive children out of the school meals service.
Let us not imagine for a moment that when children go to school they enter a completely isolated environment. There are shops near the schools and vans that go round "flogging" ice cream and crisps. All those things are commercially attractive. There is competition for such money as is available. What will happen—and there is clear evidence of this happening—is that parents will find it more and more difficult to pay the costs. Therefore, instead of giving the youngster 35p a day or whatever, as the charges go up, they will give them less, and that will be spent outside the school meals service.
I do not know why the Minister is smirking. He ought to have some sense of responsibility. That means that children will have a greatly reduced nutritional diet. The Minister ought to know that a great deal of discussion is now taking place about the nutritional value of the diet of school children.
Even if one were to concede—which I do not—that 5p is not a great deal, it means that we are putting at risk the health of future generations, and anyone who does not understand the importance of nutrition for schoolchildren does not have the right to be a Minister. For example, if girls go through a period of bad nutrition as they mature, their child-bearing capacity and capacity to bear children is reduced. That will also affect any children that they have. Therefore, this is not a trivial matter about which Conservative Members should snigger and laugh and say "It is only 16 per cent. or 17 per cent.".
As I have said, the Government are totally obsessed with monetarism. It would be far better to have a thorough examination of the school meals service. I am willing to concede that the service is not perfect and that a great deal ought to be done to make meals more attractive. I am also willing to concede that sometimes the buying pattern of food in some authorities is not all that it might be. Sometimes the very method of cooking does not do nutrition much good. However, I am willing to face those problems. That is the direction in which the thrust of the Government's attention ought to be going. They ought to be considering how to improve the school meals service, nutrition and benefits for working people.
Since the day that they came into office, the Government have shown themselves to be callous and short-sighted and to care nothing about human beings. That is why they will be condemned out of hand, and that is why I shall vote in the Lobby against the regulations.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Minister's introductory speech was like a cracked record. We have heard it all before, and those of us who serve on the Education (No. 2) Bill Committee have heard it many times before.
When we have complained about the Government attempting to cut back the school meals and milk service by more than £200 million in England and Wales and by £20 million in Scotland—a total cut of £220 million—the Minister and his colleagues claimed that they are not forcing this upon local authorities and that they were really giving them greater discretion and freedom. Freedom for what? What kind of freedom?
By means of the regulations, the Minister is on the one hand forcing the local authorities to increase the price of school meals and, on the other, by means of the inadequate rate support grant orders, he is denying the local authorities the adequate financial support that is necessary to maintain the existing school meals provision.
It is a distortion of the word "freedom" for Conservative Members to claim that they are giving more freedom to local authorities. In fact, they are tying their hands. I draw the attention of the House to a document published by the Scottish Education Department five years ago entitled "Catering in Scottish Schools". Recommendation No. 22 states:
The charge to pupils for midday meals provided by the School Catering Service should continue to be a nationally prescribed charge but should not exceed one-half of the running costs (food and overheads) of producing them. The Government should continue to subsidise the Service through Rate Support Grant.
The Government are reneging on the three principles contained in that recommendation.
For a start, the Government will eventually do away with the nationally prescribed charge, although it is odd that they are continuing it in the interim. Secondly, by introducing this charge they are setting a bad example to local authorities, which afterwards will have their own discretionary charges. I understand that the cost of a school meal is now about 56p and not the 70p of which the 35p would be half. In other words, the charge to parents will be well over the recommended 50 per cent. The third principle outlined is that the Government should continue to subsidise the service through the rate support grant.
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for education in the House tonight instead of the Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for health. He proved his incompentence in Committee earlier today. We shall see how competent his hon. Friend is this evening. I remind him that the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order says:
Provision for education is 4·2 per cent. in real terms less than the corresponding figure for 1979–80. It has been assumed the authorities will be able to effect substantial savings in expenditure on school meals, school milk and school transport as a consequence of the


increased freedom they will have in providing and charging for these services under the Education (No. 2) Bill now before Parliament.
The Government virtually admit in their own document that they will not give local authorities adequate financial support to maintain the school meals service.
In Scotland the total subsidy for school meals is about £40 million per annum, which is about 4 per cent. of the total education budget in Scotland. About 53 per cent. of primary school children and about 33 per cent. of secondary school children take advantage of the school meals service. If we deduct the number receiving free school meals in Scotland alone, we are left with 287,000 paying for school meals. These are the children who will primarily suffer. The regulations will reduce the living standards of these children and their families.
The proposed increase is from 30p to 35p. The Government may say that previous Governments of various complexions have imposed increases, but this is the second increase from this Government in less than a year in office. They inherited a charge of 25p, which they raised to 30p in September, so we have seen a 40 per cent. increase in five months. That is far too much.
There have been several increases since September 1970, but this is the biggest percentage increase in real terms since April 1971. We all know who the Secretary of State for Education and Science was in April 1971. That was before the right hon. Lady had the keys to No. 10 Downing Street, but even at that time she had begun her onslaught on the educational and health standards of our children.
It is fairly obvious that a substantial increase in school meal charges will reduce the number of children having meals at school. The Scottish Education Department document to which I referred admits that. It says:
there is a direct correlation between increases in the charge and the uptake of meals. The succession of modest increases in the charge from 1949 to 1957 had the effect of reducing the uptake from 40 per cent. to just below 30 per cent. of pupils present. During the eleven years from 1957 when the charge remained at 1/- and the meal was increasingly good value the uptake steadily increased to approximately 49 per cent. in 1968.

That was an all-time high in the provision of school meals, according to the fairly recent Scottish Education Department statistics.
If there is a reduction in the service, not only will the number of children taking school meals decrease but there will also be a reduction in the work force supplying those meals. In Scotland alone, it appears that there are 17,000 people employed in that service. Is it any wonder that trade unions such as NUPE and the General and Municipal Workers are concerned? The Minister who is replying also has responsibility for employment—or, rather, unemployment—in Scotland. Unemployment is once again over the 200,000 mark. That is the second highest total since the Second World War. The whole trend of the regulations will lead to yet another increase in unemployment in Scotland, where it is already too high.
There are plenty of examples of workers who receive subsidised meals in works canteens and even within the catering system of the House of Commons. It is well known that many company directors are on to a tax fiddle with free meals. What about the gravy trains? Honest taxpayers pay for that jamboree indirectly. However, instead of attacking those people, the Tory Government attack children—especially those from poor families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, that is just one facet of a general attack on the living standards of children. The Government refused to increase child benefits in April. They reduced the purchasing power of family income supplement and supplementary benefit with which poor families have to try to feed their children. The Government have made a concerted attack on family life.
This Government are sacrificing children on the altar of doctrinaire monetarism. That is why Conservative Members should vote with the Opposition against the proposal to increase the price of school meals.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with my hon. Friends that we should vote against the regulations. I congratulate the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) and Bridlington (Mr. Townend) on their speeches. It must be difficult for them


when they discover a Government Whip chasing along the corridors, saying that the Front Bench has been left on its own, trying to justify the regulations. The Front Bench needed someone to speak from the Back Benches. In those circumstances, those hon. Members did very well.
However to claim that an increase of 5p does not matter shows that Tory Members are out of touch with many of their constituents. This increase means an extra 50p a week to the family budget of many constituents—two children, five days a week. For many of my constituents, such an increase matters. Often constituents come to me asking why supplementary benefit has reduced their benefit by 12p, 20p, or 30p a week. To those people such sums of money are extremely important. It was, therefore, very glib of the hon. Member for Bridlington to say that 5p does not matter. For many constituents it makes a big difference.
We should also congratulate the Government on the regulations. At least the Government have been honest. They have said to the people of Britain that they are putting up the cost of school meals to pay for tax cuts. They have had the honesty to face the electorate and to tell them that that was the consequence. That may be contrasted with the Government's behaviour towards the Education (No. 2) Bill. They did not have the honesty to say that they were going to force up school meals even more dramatically in order to make a £200 million cut. They have passed that job to local authorities so that they can carry out the Government's dirty work. They have not had the honesty to stand up and say that they believe that school meals should go up by "x" amount in order to pay for tax cuts. That is despicable. They have asked local authorities to do their work and the Government expect them to take the blame.
It is sad that although the Government are raising the charges they have neglected another aspect that usually accompanies such a measure—the means test. The only argument that could be put in favour of the regulations would be that there has been inflation since the last increase in the price of school meals. However, if inflation is taken into account, the means test scale should also

be raised. It is disgraceful to raise the charge without increasing the means test levels. In other words, the Government are saying to those who are within the means test scales "You should suffer most." If the Government are looking for groups in society to pick on, they should not choose these people. On the contrary, they should give them the most help.
The Government appear to be saying that they are not prepared to put up the child benefit this year. I hope that the Minister will give us an indication that, if child benefit is considered for increase next November, he will take account not just of his increase in school meals prices but of the increases that are being forced on local authorities during the summer.
Perhaps the Minister will also explain why the Government have decided on 5p for two months of this financial year. Do the local authorities need the extra money for those two months? Will the Government claw that money back from local authorities? Are the Government pre-empting the local authorities and attempting to start them off on a course of increasing meals by 5p every two months? What price do the Government expect local authorities to be charging by September next year? The Minister should come clean and give us some answers instead of leaving it to the local authorities to use their discretion. They do not have any discretion as long as the Government insist on cuts of £200 million.
We have heard from many Tories, in this debate and in Committee, of their concern for nutritional standards in schools. We would understand that a little better if the Minister would look at the whole question of tuck shops which are promoted in a lot of schools. Perhaps he should give a little guidance to head teachers about the provisions that are made to sell sweets, crisps and biscuits at break and dinner time in those tuck shops. If the Government want to improve nutritional standards in schools, they should pay a little more attention to that sort of practice rather than attack school dinners.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will tell us the implications for employment. How many children will stop having dinners as a result of the price increase? How many jobs will be lost? What will it cost in unemployment benefit? Are


the Government certain that the extra 5p will represent much profit, taking account of the lost dinners, the lost benefit to the children, the loss of jobs and the extra unemployment benefit that they will have to pay? I hope that on this occasion the House will indicate in the voting the real lack of enthusiasm for the regulations. It was clear at the beginning of this debate that, apart from the Government Front Bench spokesmen, there was hardly anyone in the House who was prepared to support the regulations.

Mr. Harry Ewing: We have had a very interesting debate on the regulations. I am sure that the Government Whips must be in a dilemma, having started off the debate with no Back Benchers present and then, having dragged in two or three hon. Members from the Tea Room, heard them make absolutely terrible speeches. The Whips must be wondering what they can do next to get some support for these measures.
This evening is a rather historic occasion because it is probably the last time that the House will debate a statutory instrument on increases in school meal charges. Also, it is the first time that the House has debated such a statutory instrument on school meal charges without the accompanying increase in income limits. That has never happened before.
Thirdly, this is probably the first time that a statutory instrument has been used as a paving measure for legislation presently going through the House. The Secretary of State's press release makes is abundantly clear that the sole purpose of increasing the price of school meals to 35p, pending the Education (No. 2) Bill coming on to the statute book, is to make it easier for local authorities to effect the savings that the Government are imposing on them as a result of that legislation.
Fourthly, this is a historic occasion because the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) will make his maiden speech on education. He has been a Minister since last May, but apart from Scottish Question Time each month has been running education in Scotland by a series of press releases. He has shunted off all his responsibilities in

the House on to the other Under-Secretary, his unfortunate hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), who is probably the most misunderstood member of the Government.
The Under-Secretary has said that the legislation was not designed to reduce the uptake of school meals. He was referring to the legislation that we are now discussing in Standing Committee. That is to mislead the House. What is planned in the financial memorandum to that legislation is that the Government will take £200 million from local authorities in England and Wales and £20 million from local authorities in Scotland. The same Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in a parliamentary answer to me that the legislation would lead to a reduction in the uptake of school meals. That is the whole purpose of the legislation going through Committee and it is also the purpose of this statutory instrument.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said, we had heard the Minister's speech before. He did not read it too well this afternoon and he read it less well tonight. According to the Minister, the Government accept that children in Great Britain will suffer from malnutrition as a result of their decision to withdraw school meals. I do not misquote the Minister. He is on record as saying that this afternoon. He now has the audacity to come to the House and try to justify the statutory instrument to increase school meals to 35p.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a relevant speech today. Unfortunately hon. Gentlemen who were interrupting him from seated positions have left the Chamber. His point was that the figures for the increase in the number of people applying for supplementary benefit and family income supplement—which admittedly had doubled—were for the years 1974–77. We do not yet have the figures that would show the impact of the Labour Government's policy of pumping £1·5 billion in child benefits into the economy. Those figures would enable us to see what impact that policy had on the figures for earlier years given by my hon. Friend.
When we compare the Labour Government's £1·5 billion provision for child benefit with the Tory Government's paltry £8 million, we can look forward


only in fear to the 1980s when we consider the Government's policy for child benefit. I am absolutely confident that when the figures for the period 1977–79 are available we shall see that the impact of that injection by the Labour Government of £1·5 billion has been substantial.
We are not talking about an increase of 5p in the price of a school meal for some 500,000 children in England and Wales. Nor are we talking about an increase for the 200,000 children in Scotland. They are the children who are getting free school meals at the moment. But in eight weeks' time, when the Government's Bill becomes law, we shall be talking about an increase from nothing to at least 35p for them. We are not talking about an increase of 5p for these children and the Minister knows that. We are talking about an increase, for the children who now get free school meals and who are not on child benefit or family income supplement—on the Secretary of State's own figures—of from nothing to 35p.
At his press conference in October last year, the Secretary of State said that there were 500,000 children in England and Wales in that category, and I suspect there are something like 100,000 children in Scotland in that category.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland took 13 weeks to answer a question from me about the effects of the Education (No. 2) Bill on the school meals service. He did not answer off the cuff. I take it that he thought long and hard about what he said. It took from 27 July to 22 October for him to produce the answer. He said that it was impossible for him to estimate the effect of the Bill on the price of a school meal. He had a guess at it and said that a school meal would be at least 60p once the Government's policies had been implemented as a result of the Bill.
That figure applied last October, so I think that we can add another 15p to that. The picture that is emerging tonight is that the effect for the children who are presently getting free meals but are not on family income supplement or supplementary benefit—children for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has done so much—will be an increase from nothing to nearly 75p. If

the Minister wants to deny that and come back to the House later and apologise, we shall be pleased to accept his apology. That is what will happen as a result of the regulations and of the Bill.
It is no good the Secretary of State for Education shaking his head. Either he does not understand his own legislation or he does not understand the impact that it will have on those children and the damage that it will do in relation to the poverty trap. I am astonished, because I got the impression that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) intended to vote with the Government tonight. I hope that what we on the Labour Benches have said will have persuaded him to vote in our Lobby tonight because of the damage that the regulations are likely to do to the children I have defined.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: May I ask the Under-Secretary this? I am sorry: I meant to say "the hon. Gentleman". Can he give me the name of one local authority in England, Scotland or Wales that has said that the likely price of a school meal will be 75p?

Mr. Ewing: I will come to that point in a minute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am not surprised at the Secretary of State describing me as the Under-Secretary, because if I had an Under-Secretary as incompetent as his I, too, would be looking for another.
The position is that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities here in England and Wales and the other association that the Minister called in evidence are now on record as saying that it will be impossible for them to effect the savings that the Government want them to effect.
The Secretary of State has asked me to name one authority that has said that it will charge the full economic cost for school meals—

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman said 75p.

Mr. Ewing: On the Under-Secretary's statement last October it was going to be 60p. Even if I grant the Secretary of State the concession that there has been no inflation since October last year—but that is not true—the price will be at least 60p. The authority in Hillingdon has already said that it will charge the full


economic cost. I suspect that the Secretary of State's heart is not in what he is doing here. He is not that kind of a man. He is a compassionate person and he is being bumped along the line by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Industry into doing many things he does not want to do. This nonsense about the freedom that is being given to local authorities—first by the regulations—means that, whether or not they like it, from 4 February they must charge 35p.
In case the Minister puts forward the argument about the increase that was applied by the previous Labour Government, let me say that I accept that the increase applied in 1977 was 67 per cent. for a four-year period from 1975 to 1979. The Government are increasing the cost of meals by 40 per cent. in five months. I hope that the Minister will not throw out that hoary argument tonight. I hope that I have said enough to persuade Liberal Members—I know that I do not have to appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends—to join us in the Lobby and reject these despicable statutory instruments.

11 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) is lucky to have had the freedom of the House to make such remarkable misrepresentations, not only about the regulations that we are debating but about the Education (No. 2) Bill. He is misleading the House about the Bill. He should stop to consider the insults that he is hurling at local authorities, knowing that they will have discretion, under the Bill, to make decisions and to deal with school meals. To suggest that local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative-controlled, would act in the manner that he has suggested is, to say the least, extremely irresponsible.
When the hon. Gentleman referred to increases in the price of school meals made by the previous Labour Administration, I thought that he would point out to the House that the last increase, from 25p to 30p, planned by his party, was allowed for in its expenditure White Paper and in the rate support grant. It is too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to take these matters into account.
It cannot be said too often that education expenditure must not be exempt from the general reduction in public expenditure. In Scotland, milk, meals and transport cost about £60 million, of which £40 million is spent on meals alone. That is clearly the place to look for savings. It will not damage the real process of education. It is essential to have a realistic level of income from the service, and that means keeping school meal charges abreast of inflation. That was done in the last few years of the previous Labour Government.
The Opposition, and some of my hon. Friends, are quite right to care about low income families. It can sometimes be forgotten that the majority of families have income earners and a good standard of living and are not in need of a big public subsidy to buy food for their children. Throughout the debate that fact has been ignored. The majority of families in Britain are perfectly capable of feeding their children. To suggest otherwise is totally irresponsible, in this debate or anywhere else.

Mr. Field: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) accepted that point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). There is a great diversity of local circumstances, and that is allowed for in the Education (No. 2) Bill.
It is clear that there is a need for local decisions on the school meals service. In Scotland, the figures show that the uptake of meals at the end of last year in primary schools was 54 per cent. compared with a figure in England of 75 per cent. In secondary schools in Scotland it was 37 per cent. compared with 51 per cent. in England, making a total uptake in Scotland of only 47 per cent. at the last census compared with 64 per cent. in England. Clearly there must be something wrong with the school meals service in Scotland if the uptake is so low, bearing in mind that the figures include the provision of free meals.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) gave us a brief lecture on the difficulties and problems of the poverty trap and other related matters. We do not complain about that, but we should


not ignore the families—clearly a majority in Scotland—who do not need to take advantage of the allowances. They use the education service but do not derive benefit from the large subsidies paid for the school meals servise. In discussing the question broadly, one must look at both sides of the picture.

Mr. Field: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fletcher: No. Time is short and I have a number of other matters to deal with.
Let us consider the charge that local authorities cannot cope with the cuts in public expenditure. We read in The Scotsmantoday that the leader of the Labour group on Lothian regional council—the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth is groaning because it is bad news for him and his colleagues—has resigned in protest at the financial policies of the council, and he said that in his view reductions in public expenditure can be made without cutting services.

Mr. George Foulkes: Read on!

Mr. Fletcher: I would happily read on—

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fletcher: No.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fletcher: No, I will not.

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister is not giving way. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) must resume his seat.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to mislead the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the Minister uses in the content of his speech has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth overran his time considerably, leaving little time for me.

Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Minister not read the next bit of the report to which he referred?

Mr. Fletcher: If I read the next bit, I shall embarrass Labour Members even more and I have no wish to do that.
The only effect of the regulations is to raise the price of school meals from 30p to 35p—an increase of 16 per cent. No changes have been made to the conditions of entitlement to free meals or to the maximum charge of 15p for pupils receiving special education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) made clear from his experience of local government that savings could be made, but our object is not just to save money on milk and meals. It is to save on ancillary services in order to protect the essentials of the education service from damaging cuts. It is to make savings that will enable us to preserve the planned pupil-teacher ratios and to make allowance to improve them, in the light of the difficulties of declining rolls in our schools. We also need money for developments to which many hon. Members on both sides attach importance, including the advancement of teaching and training in microelectronics in Scotland, on which I announced expenditure of £300,000 a few weeks ago. We want to set up a training centre in Scotland to study teaching methods in microelectronics. We can do all that by making better use of the resources available to us.
It is obviously right that education authorities should provide catering and other services at a reasonable cost. But there is more to education than school meals. It would have helped the House in this debate if there had been some indication that the Opposition were aware of that fact. The Government's insistence on higher standards in the classroom and their attempt to improve the education service generally enable me to recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the regulations.

Question put,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Provision of Milk and Meals (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1686), dated 17 December 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 December, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 155.

Division No. 149]
AYES
[8.23 pm


Adley, Robert
Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn
Newton, Tony


Aspinwall, Jack
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Biggs-Davison, John
Henderson, Barry
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Bowden, Andrew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Raison, Timothy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Renton, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Lang, Ian
Rost, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Latham, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lennox-Soyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lester, Jim (Beston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Speed, Keith


Churchill, W. S.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth. Sutton)
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Luce, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Cockeram, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Colvin, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanley, John


Cope, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stevens, Martin


Cranborne, Viscount
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Critchley, Julian
McQuarrie, Albert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Crouch, David
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Major, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Dorrell, Stephen
Marland, Paul
Thompson, Donald


Dover, Denshore
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Thornton, Malcolm


Eggar, Timothy
Mawby, Ray
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waddington, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mellor, David
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Waller, Gary


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Watson, John


Fletcher. Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Wickenden, Keith


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Gorst, John
Murphy, Christopher



Gow, Ian
Myles, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neale, Gerrard
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Greenway, Harry
Needham, Richard
Mr. John MacGregor.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Adams, Allen
Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Alton, David
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Neill, Martin


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parker, John


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gourlay, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Ted
Penhaligon, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Prescott, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Race, Reg


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Campbell, Ian
Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Homewood, William
Sandelson, Neville


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Carmichael, Neil
Howells, Geraint
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cartwright, John
Huckfield, Les
Silverman, Julius


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Spearing, Nigel


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Spriggs, Leslie


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rhondda)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stott, Roger


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfedder, James A.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lambie, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dempsey, James
Leighton, Ronald
Tinn, James


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, Jack
Litherland, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Douglas, Dick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Eadle, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Eastham, Ken
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McKay, Allan (Penistone)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Winnick, David


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund Goole)
Woodall, Alec


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Wright, Sheila


Field, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Young, David (Bolton East)


Fitch, Alan
Maxton, John



Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ford, Ben
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. James Hamilton and


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Mr. George Morton.

Division No. 150]
AYES
[11.10 pm


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Neill, Martin


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Homewood, William
Prescott, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Race, Reg


Carmichael, Neil
Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Huckfield, Les
Robertson, George


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rowlands, Ted


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheerman, Barry


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silverman, Julius


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leighton, Ronald
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Dixon, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stott, Roger


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dunnett, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Eadle, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Eastham, Ken
McElhone, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McKay, Allan (Penistone)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Winnick, David


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Woodall, Alec


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Wright, Sheila


George, Bruce
Maxton, John
Young, David (Bolton East)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Terry Davis.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morton, George



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Forman, Nigel
Major, John


Beith, A. J.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
Mellor, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, John Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hannam,John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bright, Graham
Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Henderson, Barry
Murphy, Christopher


Buck, Antony
Hicks, Robert
Myles, David


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Neale, Gerrard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hooson, Tom
Needham, Richard


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nelson, Anthony


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Newton, Tony


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Critchley, Julian
Lang, Ian
Parris, Matthew


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Dover, Denshore
Lawrence, Ivan
Pollock, Alexander


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Raison, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Renton, Tim


Eggar, Timothy
Luce, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil
Rossi, Hugh


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Rost, Peter







Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Stanley, John
Waller, Gary


St. John-Stevas, Rt Han Norman
Steel, Rt Hon David
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stevens, Martin
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Tebbit, Norman
Wickenden, Keith


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Donald
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speed, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speller, Tony
Waddington, David



Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wakeham, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Hon William
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. John Cope.


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Question accordingly negatived.

MILK AND MEALS (EDUCATION) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) REGULATION 1979

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk and Meals

(Education) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1682), dated 7 December 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 December, be annulled.—[Mr. Milian.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 157

Division No. 151]
AYES
[11.20 pm


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Haynes, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Homewood, William
Race, Reg


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Carmichael, Neil
Howells, Geraint
Robertson, George


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Huckfield, Les
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Rowlands, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sheerman, Barry


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechtord)
Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Dixon, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Bon (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dunnett, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allan (Penistone)
Welsh, Michael


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marks, Kenneth
Wigley, Dafydd


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettlesin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Winnick, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Woodall, Alec


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb[...]rn)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


George, Bruce
Maxton, John
Wright, Sheila


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, David (Bolton East)


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)



Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morton, George
Mr. John Evans and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Dean


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Neill, Martin





NOES


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Brinton, Tim
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brooke, Hon Peter
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Beith, A. J.
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Buck, Antony
Dover, Denshore


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cadbury, Jocelyn
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Eggar, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Bowden, Andrew
Churchill, W. S.
Fairbairn, Nicholas




Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Rost, Peter


Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, John
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stanley, John


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Strading Thomas, J.


Heddle, John
Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Norman


Henderson, Barry
Myles, David
Thompson, Donald


Hicks, Robert
Neale, Gerrard
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Needham, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waller, Gary


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Ward, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Watson, John


Knox, David
Parris, Matthew
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Lang, Ian
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Penhaligon, David
Wickenden, Keith


Latham, Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Wolfson, Mark


Lawrence, Ivan
Proctor, K. Harvey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Raison, Timothy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Renton, Tim



Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. John Cope.


Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Macfarlane, Neil
Rossi, Hugh

Question accordingly negatived.

FIREMEN (PENSIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Tony Durant: I have pleasure in coming to the House to take up the case of Mr. Ingram, who is the deputy chief fire officer of Berkshire. I have been involved with this case for five years, during which I have been in correspondence with the Home Office. It is necessary for me to set the scene.
The firemen's pension scheme, which has been in operation since the service was denationalised in 1947, enables firemen to transfer between brigades in Great Britain. In these cases a man's pensionable service is transferred with him. In Northern Ireland, in the postwar period, the local authority fire brigades were organised on identical lines with the rest of the United Kingdom. But, because Northern Ireland then had a devolved Parliament at Stormont, the legislation covering the fire service

was enacted there and firemen could transfer between brigades in Northern Ireland and take their pensionable service with them.
While pensions were transferable between brigades in both areas, administratively no provision had been included in the scheme for transfers of pensionable service between a brigade constituted in Northern Ireland and an English, Welsh or Scottish brigade. Mr. Ingram joined the service in Northern Ireland in 1950 and served in various parts of the Province. From 1957 to 1960 he was seconded from Northern Ireland to the Fire Service College at Dorking as an instructor. In 1960 he was offered an appointment with the Hertfordshire fire and ambulance brigade.
When Mr. Ingram took up the question of transferring his pensionable service from Northern Ireland to Hertfordshire, the then fire authority refused to agree to the transfer of his pensionable service on the ground that legislation did not exist to enable it to do so. It was pointed out that an amendment to the pensions regulations would be a fairly simple thing to do, but the fire authority still refused to do it at that time.
Mr. Ingram decided to take the appointment in Hertfordshire and press for reconsideration of his case. He has persisted with this over the years, until recently to no avail. As a result of changing attitudes on pension transferability between widely differing forms of employment in recent years, transfer arrangements for police and firemen's pension schemes have been introduced. Under these arrangements it seemed that the anomalies of this case could be covered. Within the regulations framed to cover these transfers there are formulae evolved to convert years of service into money purchase terms. This is sometimes referred to as the "money purchase" scheme. This also enables transfers to take place between schemes with dissimilar benefits.
In theory, the new scheme enables persons joining fire brigades to take advantage of their existing pension arrangements from a wide diversity of employments. It also brought in the Northern Ireland pension scheme, which has always been broadly similar to the firemen's pension scheme in this country. Anyone who transferred from Northern Ireland to a brigade in this country after 1 April 1972 could do so without any detriment to his benefits. In 1978 regulations were made enabling persons who transferred from Northern Ireland before April 1972 to count their Northern Ireland service. Under these later regulations, money purchase was the basis for calculating transfer values. They also provided that Northern Ireland service was calculated on the basis of the age and salary of the transferee at 1 January 1974.
The results in the entitlement in years of service fall far short of the actual years served in Northern Ireland. For example, Mr. Ingram served for nine years and 158 days, and the only service transferred on the pension rights is two years and 47 days. If the regulations enable service to be credited on the basis of the age of the person concerned at the date of first joining a fire authority in this country, this would provide a much more equitable arrangement.
Another fireman involved in this case—only two are in this difficulty—is a Mr. Lightbody, who is the chief fire officer for Cheshire. I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for City

of Chester (Mr. Morrison) to associate him with my remarks, because he is equally concerned.
There are several letters from which I wish to quote in order to support my case. First, there is a letter from the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) at the time that she was at the Home Office. In a letter dated 13 December 1977, she said:
In the case of the Northern Ireland Fire Authority the new transfer arrangements apply to transfers taking place on or before 1 January 1974, but that authority will be prepared to consider paying and accepting transfer values on the new basis where transfers took place before that date. Thus, if our amending Order"—
which came in later, in 1978—
is made in the form proposed, the transfer of your constituent's pension rights may be considered by the authorities concerned.
At that time, my constituent felt that all would be well and that when the order was introduced his pension rights would be safeguarded. However, when the order was introduced he was not assisted and, as I have already said, he got a reduced period of service.
Lord Belstead, in correspondence with me in a letter dated 27 December last, outlined the history of this case, most of which I have repeated. He said:
I do not think it would be reasonable to require fire authorities in Great Britain to meet the additional cost which would arise from allowing firemen who transferred from the Northern Ireland Fire Authority in the 1960s to reckon the length of service they would have been allowed to reckon had Northern Ireland been prepared to agree to transfer arrangements at that time, without the receipt of a commensurate transfer value. As far as I am aware, it is not intended that the Northern Ireland Firemens Pension Scheme should be amended to provide for the payment of increased transfer values in these circumstances.
That seems like a negative answer. However, the fourth paragraph of another letter from the Home Office, dated 21 September 1979, which was also signed by the noble Lord, states:
Mr. Ingram is quite right in saying that the Northern Ireland and Great Britain Fire schemes are broadly similar, but in this case he will be credited with less reckonable service largely because his transfer value has been calculated on the monetary value of his pension rights in Northern Ireland on the basis of his age and pay in 1960.
It was thought that the Northern Ireland fire service would not support his application. But a letter which


Mr. Ingram has passed to me to use in the debate, dated 2 October 1979 and signed by the secretary to the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland, said:
It is not part of the policy of this Authority to obstruct or restrict your right to previous service".
I feel that this man, as well as the other gentleman, both of whom are good fire officers, who have served the fire service extremely well both in this country and Northern Ireland, have been badly penalised in respect of their pension rights. I urge my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider some ex gratia basis to put this matter right or to amend paragraph 1 of part 11 of appendix 4 to the Firemen's Pension Scheme (Amendment) Order 1978 so that paragraph 1(2) applies to Mr. Ingram and Mr. Lightbody as opposed to paragraph 1(4), which appears to be the present interpretation.
I appreciate that this is a complicated case and I know that the Minister has all the papers with him. I make a special plea on behalf of these two men who, I think, have not had a fair deal in relation to their pension rights.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): If I may say so, Mr. Ingram owes a considerable debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) for the assiduous way that he has pursued his case, not only in this debate, where he has put the matter so clearly, but also in correspondence both with the present Administration and with our predecessors.
I should also like to add that the case of Mr. Lightbody has been pursued with a similar degree of assiduity by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who has pressed his claim in the same manner and using similar arguments to those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North.
The essence of Mr. Ingram's claim is that he should be allowed to reckon his period of service as a fireman in Northern Ireland towards his fireman's pension in Great Britain. Broadly speaking, there is no difficulty in reckoning the same service on transfer between fire

brigades in Great Britain, as the same pension schme covers all brigades in England, Wales and Scotland.
The Great Britain and Northern Ireland firemen's pension schemes, on the other hand, are separate but they now belong to the same transfer club, and for transfers since April 1972 there is similar provision for firemen who transfer between the two schemes.
However, before April 1972 there were no such arrangements. The policy in Northern Ireland was not to encourage such transfers. The fact that the secretary of the Northern Ireland Fire Authority said on 2 November 1979 that it was no part of the policy of his authority to obstruct or restrict Mr. Ingram's right to previous service may reflect the policy of that authority in 1979, but it does not reflect the policy that was applied by the Northern Ireland authorities dealing with these matters in 1960, which was the relevant date.
The policy in Northern Ireland, as I have said, was not to encourage such transfers. Recent changes, however, enable those who transferred during that time to gain some benefit from their service in Northern Ireland by an actuarial calculation, translating the value of the transfer payment made by Northern Ireland into the value of the length of service credited in the Great Britain scheme.
Mr. Ingram is asking to be treated exceptionally by being credited with more service than the actuarial value of the transfer payment being made. He is asking to be treated either as if he had transferred after April 1972, when the new transfer system took effect, or as if there had been reciprocal arrangements in force between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1960.
I must make it clear that, although I appreciate the force with which my hon. Friend puts forward Mr. Ingram's case, Mr. Ingram is not in any way being victimised. He is being treated in accordance with the rules of the scheme.
The fireman's pension scheme for Great Britain is set out in an order made under section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 by the Home Secretary, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Before making an order, the Home Secretary is required to consult the Central Fire


Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The current scheme is set out in the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order 1973.
This scheme is considered to be one of the best in the public service. The two main factors that determine pension are reckonable service and pensonable pay in the last year of service. The scheme provides for a maximum personal pension of two-thirds of annual pensionable pay after 30 years' reckonable service, or half pay after 25 years. The scheme covers the whole of Great Britain but does not extend to Northern Ireland, where they have their own scheme.
As I have already indicated, firemen may normally move about between brigades in Great Britain without affecting their pension rights, because they are members of the same pension scheme. Where there has been a promotion on transfer or a gap in service, the transfer value will be insufficient to meet the cost in pension terms of the improved circumstances. Nevertheless, fire authorities accept these results on a "swings and roundabouts" principle.
There is also a transfer system that applies throughout the public service and to other schemes prepared to pay and receive transfer values, under which pension rights may be transferred from one pension scheme to another. Rights which have accrued during service under the scheme the employee is leaving are converted into a sum of money, which is called the transfer value and which is the actuarial equivalent of such rights. The transfer value is then reconverted to establish what it represents in terms of pensionable service in the scheme to which the employee is moving.
It has been agreed between public service schemes on a reciprocal basis to credit service for all transfers since April 1972 on the basis of age and pensionable pay on leaving the first scheme. This means that for recent transfers from the Northern Ireland fire service a fireman is likely to be credited with the same length of service as he had in Northern Ireland.
There was no such general agreement for reciprocity between schemes in respect of transfers before April 1972. However, amendments to the firemen's pension scheme were made in October 1978 enabling some service to be credited

on receipt of a transfer value for such transfers. These transfers are dealt with on the basis of crediting service as if the transfer value had been paid on 1 January 1974. Fire authorities bear the cost of any improved circumstances between January 1974 and the date when the transfer value is received. It was not considered reasonable to impose any greater burden on them. The firemen concerned benefit in being able to reckon service under the scheme, which they had formerly no prospect of counting at all. Mr. Ingram's case comes into this category.

Mr. Durant: Surely, the Minister's argument shows that everyone has been discussed except these two poor chaps. The authorities have amended the regulations and done everything to make a transfer suitable, but those two were left out.

Mr. Brittan: That is not the case. At the time of transfer, my hon. Friend's constituent and Mr. Lightbody—to the extent that he is in a comparable position—had no reason to expect that any of their years in Northern Ireland could count towards any pension entitlement through any transfer mechanism. Contrary to any expectations that Mr. Ingram might have had, he was subsequently put in a position whereby some entitlement accrued. That puts the question in a different light.
I now come to the circumstances of Mr. Ingram's case. He transferred from the Northern Ireland Fire Authority to the Hertfordshire fire brigade in 1960. At that time the two schemes were broadly similar, as they are now. There was, however, no provision for the transfer of pension rights between the two schemes, because the policy in Northern Ireland at that time was quite clear and deliberate. It was not an accidental administrative quirk or omission. The policy was not to enter into transfer arrangements that might encourage firemen to leave Northern Ireland.
As regards the equity of the case, there must be many people in Northern Ireland who continued to serve in the fire brigades there—no doubt under more arduous conditions than operate in some parts of Great Britain—and they might have been tempted to come to Great Britain. However, they did not do


so because they knew full well that if they did their years of service in Northern Ireland would not count towards their ultimate pension.
It would be quite wrong to say that Mr. Ingram, having decided to come to Great Britain in full knowledge of the situation, should have those years accredited to him at a later date when his colleagues had remained in Northern Ireland. Those colleagues remained there because they realised the situation, and they did not want to lose their years of pensionable service in Northern Ireland. Mr. Ingram decided to transfer in the knowledge that his Northern Ireland service would not reckon at all for pension purposes under the Great Britain scheme. This was made abundantly clear to him at the time and he accepted the position.
I have the documents here which show just how carefully the matter was considered. A letter was written to Mr. Kerr, who at the time headed the Fire Service College where Mr. Ingram was. The letter says:
I should be glad if you will ask Ingram to confirm in writing that he still wishes to take the post in Hertfordshire, notwithstanding that he realises that this will involve the forfeiture of his pensionable service in Northern Ireland.
That letter was dated 30 November 1959. Elsewhere in that letter the signatory—a Home Office official dealing with the matter at the time—said:
I have now received a reply from Stormont about Ingram. I am afraid it is not very favourable, since the Northern Ireland Government, after consultation with the Northern Ireland Fire Authority, have decided, not only that they cannot pay a transfer value, but that as a matter of policy they do not wish to enter into negotiations for arranging reciprocity of transfer values. It follows from this that if Ingram takes the Hertfordshire post, his previous service will not count for pension, and that there is no prospect of any future amendment of the law which might be operated with retrospective effect so as to allow his pensionable service in the past to count for pension.
The letter from the official goes on:
I understand, however, that when Ingram visited Northern Ireland he informed the Fire Office Commander that he intended to accept the Hertfordshire post…notwithstanding the fact that he would forfeit his pensionable service with the Northern Ireland Fire Authority.
The suggestion was that Mr. Ingram should confirm in writing that he realised that position and none the less wanted to go ahead and transfer to England.
Duly we find on the file a letter of 7 December 1959 to the official at the Home Office from Mr. Ingram saying:
With reference to your letter of 30 November 1959 to the Commandant of the Fire Service College"—
and that is the letter from which I have just quoted extensively—
I wish to confirm that I am still anxious to take up the appointment with Hertfordshire, providing the difficulties under the appointment of promotion regulations can be overcome.
Therefore, the position is somewhat different from that which appears at first sight.
As a result of the amendments made in 1978 in the Great Britain scheme and similar amendments made in the Northern Ireland scheme, a transfer value has now become payable in Mr. Ingram's case. But it must be calculated on the basis of his pensionable pay in Northern Ireland in 1960, and I would stress that, in so far as any transfer value has now become payable at all, it is something which Mr. Ingram had no reason to expect when he came to England, and did not expect.
The position is that as a result of the amendments made in 1978 the service that Mr. Ingram had accumulated in 1960 was calculated actuarially to produce a transfer value. That was treated under the scheme as if it had been paid to the new fire authority in 1974. By 1974 Mr. Ingram was earning very much more than in 1960, and with a consequent higher potential pension entitlement. This meant that the cost of buying a year's worth of pension had become that much higher, so that the transfer value of his Northern Ireland years, in terms of the number of years' pension that they could buy, was much less. In round figures, Mr. Ingram's nine years in Northern Ireland buy only two years' credit in the scheme here.
Once the fire authority decides to accept a transfer value, it has no discretion to depart from the resulting calculation of service. The only way to do that would be to revise the scheme itself or to make some sort of ex gratia payment. Mr. Ingram has risen to the senior ranks of hisprofession—I am sure by hard work and ability. I congratulate him on his success. But when a man has taken a deliberate decision to forgo pension entitlement in the interests of his career,


for whatever cause, I think that it is reasonable to expect him to abide by the consequences of that decision.
It is to his advantage that subsequent amendments to the firemen's pension scheme enable him to count two extra years towards his pension. That is what I might call an uncovenanted bonus. I sympathise with Mr. Ingram's desire to improve his pension position still further,

but I am afraid that this is all that the scheme, as it now stands, provides for. For the reasons that I have given, I do not think it would be justified to make any further changes in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock